Talk:Dissociative identity disorder/Archive 9

Weight - the intro

The Iatrogenic hypothesis is probably the dominating one today, yet the intro spend one sentence on it, while spending a vast majority of its space on the minority point of view. How about we do the opposite instead? Juice L 21:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We are already discussing what is appropriate in the lead and basically have already come to consensus on how it should read. Please read the section above ("Lead") and feel free to chime in there afterward. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think the best thing to do is concentrate on filling out the body with the best sources available - all sections - and after we've done that we give the page a good long read and try to change the lead to reflect it. You get both a better body and a better lead, and the only downside is an incomplete lead lingers for a bit longer - but it's already kinda shit because it's already not doing the body justice. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, you're going to make it even longer? Then we really need to focus on the lead, because very few would ever dare to read the whole thing. But OK, do that and we can work on the lead later. Juice L 21:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Juice. I'm going to be going through everything and doing what is best for the article. I know a lot about DID but am not familiar with most of the literature. That means I basically have to read everything already referenced and make/suggest changes where I see necessary and then also adding new things to make the article better (and yes, probably much longer). I hope you can help and behave more neutrally than you have been. If you check out my talk page, WLU and I have already discussed his most recent changes and he has sent me literature to read and I will also probably be rewording some of it. We can discuss individual things on this page now. I agree the lead should be kept as it is (for now), it could be much more lopsided and unfair. Forgotten Faces (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The best practice is always to write the body first, and later the introduction. The introduction is supposed to summarize the body. You cannot accurately summarize something that does not exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've also found it's a lot easier to write the intro on a well-fleshed-out body; you generally know the sources better, the prose, the debates are complete and thus easier to articulate, and so forth.

FF, reviewing the sources is an excellent idea - it looks like more than a few accounts have edited without actually reading them, which leaves a bunch of crap information and misrepresented points.

Juice, the page will certainly get longer, and it should. The fact that there are two major perspectives that are unresolved means we have to do double-duty for most of the sections. However, if the page gets too long, we start spinning out the longer sections into sub-articles with a {{main}} left behind. That's the essence of WP:SS. As is, the history section could probably be trimmed down and some of it moved to its own article. As far as length goes, even in sources alone we've still got much work to do - I've barely scratched the surface of those that use "multiple personality disorder" rather than DID. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Healthy multiples/medians

Will this article ever get a section on multiples and medians, people with more than one person inside them who do not have the severe disordered behaviour of those with the made-up condition DID? As a median myself, I have to say that this article's extremely biased towards the 'it's a severe mental illness always caused by trauma with no awareness of others' viewpoint. --Stealthy (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe this came up before, but good luck finding it in the archives.

The limiting factor is always sources to verify the text. I have yet to see any scholarly text that discusses healthy multiplicity. If you are aware of any, we could use them to add info on the topic to the page (perhaps the treatment section?). But if the only sources are popular books and personal websites, we're far, far more limited to saying that it exists and that's about it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it somewhat disturbing that you realize you are a multiple but think people who have more comorbid problems and disordered behaviors than you are somehow always faking it.

But anyway, if you want it in here, like WLU says, you need to find good sources. I would welcome it and have indeed read some personal anecdotes about persons who are "healthy multiples" and are making it work in the real world. Forgotten Faces (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Okay, I know there are headings for this but they are SO buried. We seem to have some agreement on what the lead needs to portray, but the wording is still being worked out. I most recently changed it a bit to reflect that only misused therapy has been implicated as far as I can tell, and not that proper use would cause iatrogenic alters. I also would like to split the sentence into two if we decide to keep it as is... it's not quite a run on but it is cumbersome. Forgotten Faces (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Split to two sentences.

The actual sources don't specify just misused therapy, Weiten for instance mentions it being face-saving (i.e. originating in the patient), Rubin et al. discuss popular influences, and the Pope & Merskey articles go in to greater depth - to the point of saying the entire thing is false and manufactured due to a variety of influences. Splitting the sentence is a good idea, but I can't agree to the initial wording. I've made a couple edits (one of which removed an easter egg that appeared to go to psychotherapy but actually went to iatrogenesis).

"Misused" is a very, very, very loaded term that doesn't capture the objections of the sociocognitive debate. This is the kind of issue where in an ideal situation we'd have a lengthy expansion of the discussion in the body, and simply summarize in the lead. There's complexities and nuances that should be conveyed on both sides that we're skipping over in the lead and skimping on in the body.

Other options? Is the current wording still suboptimal? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's okay now, I just added "proposed" which hopefully you are okay with. Forgotten Faces (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

But by putting "proposed" in, you've just created an artificial distinction - that "traumagenic" is a real explanation, and "sociocognitive" is merely a proposed one. There's a body of experimental and theoretical literature that backs the sociocognitive/iatrogenic hypothesis, and there are flaws to the traumagenic hypothesis. The question itself is not resolved. I realize several editors think that traumagenic is the "real", or at least majority opinion, but I don't think that's a distinction we can make based on an honest representation of the actual scholarly literature. Without specific sources giving breakdowns on relative prominence (and I haven't seen any to date) I don't think we can state whether one is majority or fixed, and the other minority or proposed. I think both "sides" have to resist the urge to downplay the other and thus give undue weight to one over the other until we can establish conclusively, using sources, that this is the case. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgottenfaces, I've reverted your edit, per WLU's rationale. Can I introduce myself? I know very little about this topic. I know Harold Merskey's work on the psychology of pain, but haven't read him on DID, and I've just started reading Ian Hacking's Rewriting the Soul. But that's because I'm trying to read all of Hacking's books, not because I have a special interest in DID.

I may or may not continue to contribute here, but if I do it will be as a novice reader. I hope that perspective adds something to the mix - many current contributors seem to have fairly firm ideas on, particularly, etiology. I have none. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the fray Mr. Cole. From the article:

"Individuals diagnosed with DID frequently report severe physical and sexual abuse as a child. The etiology of DID has been attributed to the experience of pathological levels of stress which disrupts normal functioning and forces some memories, thoughts and aspects of personality from consciousness, though an alternative explanation is that limited dissociated identities are the iatrogenic effect of certain psychotherapeutic practices or increased popular interest. The debate between the two positions is characterised by passionate disagreement."

I can agree with this if we add the word limited and site E. Howells 2011 book that explains this.~ty (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anthonyhcole! It is nice to meet you and thanks for contributing. I definitely understand the rationale... I guess my problem is mostly that the lead ends with that. But then again, if it were in the beginning I would most definitely not approve and maybe I just need to get over it.

Here's a radical idea. The problem seems to be adding caveats and then caveats on the caveats (like tylas, your last suggestion). Can we just get rid of the second paragraph altogether, or only leave "Individuals diagnosed with DID frequently report severe physical and sexual abuse as a child." And then something like (this is just a rough quick example, I have to leave the house in a moment)... "There are different theories on how DID develops and frequent infighting in the field on it's theoretical traumatic origins." And leave it as that, to be explained more in the rest of the article? I have no experience here but I'm trying to figure out a novel idea to make everyone somewhat satisfied. Forgotten Faces (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think FF is right. I agree. This is even a better solution than my last agreement! Except change "their are different theories on how Alters are created", not on how DID is created. :) ~ty (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

06:51, 2 February 2012‎ Anthonyhcole (talk | contribs)‎ (55,653 bytes) Can't we cite just one source for each of the etiology theories?) (undo)

I am in total support of this! please!~ty (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Individuals diagnosed with DID frequently report severe physical and sexual abuse as a child. There are different theories on how an Alter develops and frequent infighting in the field on it's theoretical traumatic origins."

I agree with this if we change DID to Alter. Great job Lady! ~ty (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, an ideal lead doesn't cite any sources (which WP:LEAD does allow, it's a consensus developed on each page). The use of "limited" again presents problems - how many alters and DID diagnoses are due to trauma? How many are due to iatrogenesis? Those who beleive in the iatrogenesis/sociocognitive hypothesis believe that the vast wave of DID diagnoses in the 80s and 90s is due to iatrogenesis, and thus the majority of cases are iatrogenic - citing the incredible rarity of DID before the 80s. Do we have any numbers or estimates? But if we keep in the sources, then we really need one citation for each potential theory (unless we can find one citation that includes them all).

I think mentioning that people report trauma and abuse, without noting that these reports are considered questionable by some researchers (even the DSM makes this point, see page 527), presents its own problems and again leads to a back-and-forth.

I see this as further emphasis placed on the traumagenic hypothesis being "real" and the iatrogenic hypothesis being "wrong/flawed/naive/mistaken". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the last point - mentioning frequent reports of trauma is alluding to one of the disputed etiologies, which necessitates, for WP:NPOV, mentioning any others. I'm ambivalent as to whether the lead should discuss etiology, though I lean towards inclusion. Some Wikipedia mental illness articles do, and some don't. My only thought is that, if this one does, it should be a simple statement of the (two?) proposed etiologies, and a mention that there is deep disagreement among professionals. 'Night all. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How about just - "There are different theories on how DID develops and frequent infighting in the field as to its origins." (or nothing) as a temporary comprise while working on something else? Concise, nothing has more weight than anything else and has the basic ideas without the significant details (trauma model vs iatrogenic leading to additional information refuting iatrogenesis, etc) that are later explored in the article. Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the controversy over etiology is so significant that it is appropriate to include it in the lead, and that it is appropriate to name the two major theories there (but not necessarily to say anything else about them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Claims that only "misused" therapy would cause iatrogenic alters is a massive bit of personal conclusions not supported by the actual reliable sources. There is absolutely no consensus to make the lead state that, as it's simply not true. The lead needs to accurately describe that the diagnosis itself is controversial, otherwise it is missing the whole point. DreamGuy (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

I've fixed the archives so {{atn}} will work properly and harmonized their names. I've also moved much of the content from January 2012 to an archive and adjusted Miszabot's configuration to hit at 60 days. With TomCloyd's ban or departure, and Tylas' apparent resignation, there shouldn't be much activity and most of the sections were useless anyway. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed a bunch more which had little focus on the article, except to note accessibility issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Treatment section

"There is a general lack of consensus in the diagnosis and treatment of DID.[14]"

That's how the section starts, but then it seems to describe a general consensus of phase oriented treatment (with a lot of good refs) and a minority only respond to one alter. My issues is only with the first line which is contradicted by the rest of the paragraph even thought it's a reasonable conclusion from reading that article (and only that one). Thoughts? Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WLU? Dreamguy? Forgotten Faces (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

At least the "diagnosis" part of the statement appears to be generally true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that, but considering that information is all over the article (as it should be), it doesn't seem necessary or correct to have it in section devoted to treatment, imo. Forgotten Faces (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Lots of references doesn't necessarily translate to agreement on treatment. Iatrogenesis/sociocognitive would focus on removing the individual from treatment focusing on alters and only reinforcing a single, coherent identity. That "general consensus" might focus on the traumagenic condition. It might be best to phrase it as "traumagenic treatment involves..." but without more appropriate and explicit sources, it's hard to write. There are a small number of sources that address both positions, I would suggest starting with them. Merely having one form of treatment doesn't mean it's the only, best, preferred or even proven treatment. I'll try to get back into reading and editing to see if I can find more. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you are saying. Thanks for explaining. Forgotten Faces (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted to consensus version prior to edit warring and canvassing

OK, since the major problem editors here who made massive changes to the article lately have either been blocked, are in the process of being blocked, or have vowed to leave Wikipedia (i.e. to get out before being blocked) I have reverted the article back to its state before they made some massive, undiscussed changes to it.

Let me make it very clear here: the article needs to not censor the fact that this diagnosis is controversial, and the lead must accurately reflect the rest of the article. There have been various attempts to remove that completely as well as edits that, by their nature, do the same thing. The average user does not know what iatrogenetic, etc. means, and saying that some believe it to be primarily caused that way may as well be saying some believe it to be trauma and some believe it to be gobbledygook. The experts who think it is caused by the therapists are not saying, as has been argued by some proponents of the trauma theory in discussion above, that it is a real and valid diagnosis but has a slightly different cause, they are largely arguing that it would not exist without the therapists creating it within their patients, and that if there was no diagnosis of multiple personalities they would never be talked into the symptoms. Using technical language while avoiding what that means and what those experts are saying has the same effect for most people reading the article as censoring it completely.

Considering how controversial both the topic and the editing of the article has been, I would expect that any changes to how these things have been historically worded in this article would need to have a fairly detailed conversation here and consensus gained before editing pushes ahead. People can be bold, but if it's something that's not obviously agreed upon by all I will revert it to the longstanding version until consensus is hammered out. The free for all here is over. DreamGuy (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The longstanding version was last substantially updated several years ago, the whole page needs a good going-over. For instance, the version you reverted to contained a large number of primary sources, while the new version uses three secondary sources, including Reinders who goes into detail regarding the iatrogenic position. The "Criticisms" section has been broken up to include the criticisms in the appropriate section per WP:STRUCTURE. The legal section is greatly expanded with two, rather than one, sources. I very carefully reviewed each change made by TomCloyd and Tylas and bar the lead (which is inadequate no matter what, but will be better served by summarizing the body - which should be expanded first) the changes to the body were good and neutral in my opinion. I agree Tylas and TomCloyd made several problematic edits, but I looked over them and reverted when I thought they were bad - and in the process expanded a lot of other parts as well as cleaning them up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be your opinion that the article needed a substantial update, but you would still need consensus to do so. The lead that was there was quite a bit worse than the old version. We can discuss other edits one by one, and if they are good then they will earn consensus, I am sure. Any prior discussion was clouded by extreme POV pushing on both sides, and with those editors gone we can make some progress. Keep in mind, however, that we can't fool ourselves into thinking that we magically no longer have any concerns about POV now tht those editors are gone. I suggest we make sections below for each group of related changes. I have no problem with using Reinders in general, for example, but that doesn't mean the new wording as a whole is better than the old. We should discuss it instead of just pushing it through rapidly. We have all the time in the world to improve things here. DreamGuy (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We have pretty clear cut guidelines in medical articles on the use of secondary sources. Given it is a guideline and not a policy, I can see instances where primary sources could be used, but each would need some discussion to clarify why they warranted inclusion. Note that I am not hugely familiar with either page version. Agree that autoarchiving needs to be turned off and some of this page manually archived instead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, DreamGuy. I have worked hard to edit the page while all of the BS was happening and WLU and myself made good changes to the body and had consensus to fix the body before changing the lead again. I agree with this. We can work from where we are now, it is certainly not a worse version than the "old" consensus version and we are still working on one thing - one reference at a time. Please leave it like it is. I have no intentions and have not edited out any controversy. It does belong on the page and there is no argument about that from anyone still here editing. I actually never said it should be removed because it so obviously needs to be included (you are lumping me in with tylas and TomCloyd again here). Let's take our time and do it right, eh? Forgotten Faces (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I still think the lead is suboptimal and needs reworking, but I also think we're better off focussing on the body for now (as I said above). I would support reverting the lead section, but really, really would rather not undo all the work to the body. Any specific edits to the body can of course be discussed but there are a large number of edits I consider unquestionable improvements that really, really should be kept without a very good reason to remove them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with the lead being restored but I really, really like how now it is included that the sides are diametrically opposed, it is a neutral and accurate statement that helps the reader understand what is going on and it is not bulky. Forgotten Faces (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you need every bit as much consensus to revert to an old version as you need consensus to make changes. There's no special privilege given to old versions, especially if they are known to have problems, like an inappropriate reliance on primary sources. I oppose the reversion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

lit review

As said before, I am going through all the articles and adding/removing relative/irrelevant/incorrect/etc information. Working on Ross 2009 now, as you all can see. I will ask for input on stuff I see as controversial or that I don't understand(see the past few sections on this talk page), and otherwise am just expanding without asking. If you believe I have done something in error, please let me know on this talk page, as I am attempting to be neutral and informative but 1. I am still a newbie and am learning and 2. we all have our bias that seeps in without realizing. I will also add a list of what I have gone through, for anyone else who wants to check over the information I am adding/removing. I welcome it as I really want it all to be correct. If anyone needs PDFs, let me know - if I have edited something that means I have the PDF unless otherwise noted. Forgotten Faces (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Processed:

• Reinders, A. A. T. S. (2008). "Cross-examining dissociative identity disorder: Neuroimaging and etiology on trial"
• Piper, A.; Merskey, H. (2004). "The persistence of folly: A critical examination of dissociative identity disorder. Part I. The excesses of an improbable concept"

Um, wow, this really isn't necessary and it's really something an editor would normally do on a subpage. The acrimony on this page may have given you a skewed sense of what is normal; WP:BRD is much more common. It's very transparent of you, but you're creating work for yourself and I'm not sure of the gain. Feel free if you'd like to continue, but... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I do have a skewed view. All that happened I didn't feel like anything could really be trusted on this page and that every little thing will be examined. You're right, I should just BRD. Getting a little OCD perhaps. :) I will do that. ThanForgotten Faces (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Still be conservative in editing, use references always and be prepared to discuss on the talk page (the "D" in BRD) but yeah, if your first major wikipedia experience is like this, you tend to think that you have to justify every edit on the talk page. It actually depends on the individual page, in most cases the edit summary is adequate. Major changes to any page are probably good to justify via talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Research directions"

This is a nice little loaded paragraph stuck neatly at the very end of the article... First off, do you WLU or anyone else have access to the material cited? I would like to take a look at it and go from there. Assuming the text is verified, though, it seems pretty out of place. Shouldn't this be in history or somewhere else more fitting? Forgotten Faces (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This illustrates nicely the dangers of writing from access to abstracts alone. The study is an interesting one, even if it's only of historical value. It MAY be the only one of its kind we have, to this date. Don't know. We need to examine the methods section, for sure. The comparison of DID with "other well-established diagnoses" seems sensible. However, the devil is in the details, and we don't have them. The study is also 9 years old, which raises a small question. There's been a lot of publishing in the fields of dissociation and dissociative disorders in the past 5-7 years, and this study takes no account of that.

As for the conclusion "Overall, our observations suggest that these diagnostic entities presently do not command widespread scientific acceptance..." - this appears to be at best inadequately supported by the data. To reach this conclusion, one must plainly exclude competing explanations. That would be done in the Discussion section of the paper, and we have no access to that.

Their data appears more support a speculative conclusion of disinterest than of non-acceptance. THAT is a far different thing, I think you will agree. Must be time to publish a new, revised, fully illustrated leather bound edition of Sybil, so we can get research on DID in professional psychology and psychiatry going again, eh? ( :) Just another one of my DID jokes. I have a number...)

Friday (this being Wednesday) I'm journeying to a nearby town whose state university likely has this journal in its library. I will try to make a photo camera (gotta love what we can do with digital cameras these days). I can share brief sections of it. Contrary to some people's understanding of copyright law, this is "fair use", and not a problem at all.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have it, I'll request it. That summary is based on the abstract. I'll happily provide it to anyone interested, or you can also try WP:LIB.

The placement makes sense to me, note that it's duplicated in the history section, arguably it can go in both locations but I think "research directions" is reasonable.

We don't get to analyze and criticize it's methods section, though if it has been criticized by another reliable source we can include that information. I've noted the year of publication and date range sampled in the body. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you have my email. About the placement. It just seems redundant and well... this is probably not really worth going into until I can actually read the thing. Thanks again. Forgotten Faces (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"We don't get to analyze and criticize it's methods section". You don't, 'cause you probably can't. I've taught research method. I can, and I will. If it's a bad study, compared to others, I'll argue that. If a consensus doesn't develop, the issue goes to external review, where one way or another the decision gets made. There actually ARE such things as educated editors at Wikipedia. Elementary reading of a methods section is no different from elementary reading of a conclusion section. A very straightforward exercise. All studies, all conclusions are not created equal. We can do whatever we can justify. WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS SO OPPOSITIONal? WHY? This is not the behavior of someone actually interested in consensus development.

An example of my point:

• Study A is a study of 9 subjects, treated with a new psychotherapy. A within subject design is used, and the results are pooled. Non-parametric statistics are used to assess the probability that the results are statistically significant. There is no allowance made for confounding variables - the sample is really too small to do this.

• Study B is a single- or (we get real lucky) double-blind study of the same treatment. Two hundred fifty subjects are used, and five confounding variables are partialled out to improve the validity of the results. Parametric statistical tests are used to assess both significance and effect size.

Study A supports the point you are trying to make in a paragraph of the article. Study B does not. There ARE no review studies in the literature yet, and the issue is important to the article narrative. What do you do? And why? (Review articles do not exist for everything, so this example is realistic, if a bit stacked and oversimplified.)

Some editors can answer this and explain why, and the case will be made (it's an easy case, in this example). Consensus can develop from this discussion. Problem solved.

OF COURSE we look at the methods section. Jeez.

It's way past time for you to drop your delusion that leaning on Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines will enable you to jump all hurdles. It absolutely will not (though such behavior is a great way to launch a wikilawyering career). Knowing what you're doing is also helpful, as is being able to construct an argument and to be persuasive in your presentations of it.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

See the last paragraph of WP:MEDASSESS. You can critique anything you want—on your own website. Here on Wikipedia, picking apart a study's methods is a violation of WP:NOR and not permitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You're wikilawyering. That's not OK (see US Constitution). Not even moral (See Holy Bible, rev. ed.). There. We settled THAT.

In other words, if you have a relevant source, cite it properly. I am NOT going to plow through the whole thing trying to see what your talking about. Get specific, if you can. Point me to the relevant section. Otherwise, you're doing what WLU tried to do here all the time with newbies, whack over the head with some heavy weight Wikipedia Policy statement. I'm not a newbie, and I recognize sloppy method when I see it. As for my assertions above, they are about a way of reaching consensus, and it is not at all out of line, if you can follow the line of argumentation. Prove to me, by proper source citation, that it is, please.

Adding to my line of argumentation above it would be simple for me to cite authorities backing up the assertion that Study B is the better, for any of several reasons. Believe me, I do have the references. So, you see, it would not be my "research" at all. It would be pointing out that the studies given illustrate the point made elsewhere in reputable source. What would be wrong with this? So, yes, we look at method sections if necessary.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Older sources are used all the time in various fields of research, it is completely normal and often necessary. And it is not necessarily original research to point out flaws in studies, if you add the analysis in the article, yes; but on a talk page using it to argue against including the source in the first place is totally legit. I do not agree with much of Tom's conclusions in general, but there is no point in being dishonest about matters such as these. Juice L 09:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a legitimate point of disagreement, and one that we might settle through a request for comment. Let's try to get a copy of the full article first (I'll let people know if mine comes in today, and I'd appreciate the favour be returned) then decide if we want to go that route. WT:MED or WT:MEDMOS might be another way to go since it's related to the specific contents of a MEDMOS-compliant section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that we can communicate about this more productively than before. I appreciate it, everyone. Forgotten Faces (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent team!~ty (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I had thought it was clear to everyone here that NOR applies to the mainspace; I apologize if I assumed too much understanding. We cannot post Tom's personal analysis of the methodology of any study in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WLU, did you ever get this? Forgotten Faces (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't end up getting a copy from the one person I asked and I've been diverted and busy both on wikipedia and off. Frankly I don't see much value in getting a copy since I don't see it as a particularly controversial point; if you're still interested the only thing I can think of is perhaps asking Doc James or trying WP:LIB. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I just don't understand why this information has it's own section, I'm going to put it in history, it seems like it belongs there as the more recent history of the diagnosis? Let me know if you have a problem with this. I'll find the article myself at some point. Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have a copy of it now and will read through it this afternoon. Let me know if you want it. Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure send it to me.

The reason I put it in its own section is because it's not so much a part of the general history of DID - it's a very specific pattern of scientific research. "Research directions" was the best fit I could find per the WP:MEDMOS, but I'm open to putting it elsewhere. But just dropping it into history where it drowns among the rest of the more general historical information. If we had a section specifically on the controversy I'd put it there, but we don't. We could always start a new section discussing it's scientific history, that's an option. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms

I have some issues with this paragraph:

"Despite research on DID including structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, single-photon emission computed tomography, event-related potential and electroencephalography, no convergent neuroimaging findings have been identified regarding DID making it difficult to hypothesize a biological basis for DID. In addition, many of the studies that do exist were performed from an explicitly trauma-based position, and did not consider the possibility of iatrogenic induction of DID.[14] Studies have shown differences between cerebral blood flow[17] and changes in visual parameters between alters,[18] as well as support for amnesia between alters.[14] There is no research to date regarding the neuroimaging and introduction of false memories in DID patients.[14]"

It seems to contradict itself, although that might be a deficiency in my understanding of the scientific concepts being explained. It says there are no findings and then two sentences later talks about findings. I don't have problems with the "did not consider the possibility of iatrogenic induction of DID" but do think this all needs to be reworded to be more clear. Additionally, the last line seems to not fit and I can't find anywhere in the article it specifically mentions there is no research - WLU can you point me to it, it's very possible I am overlooking it. Of course that may be a fact but it seems sort of out of left field to be stuck on the end like that, know what I mean? Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say a 2008 review article over-rules a 2003 and 1996 review article and am comfortable with removing everything not verified by reference 14 (Reinders). I only added the Reinders info, when I gutted that section a couple weeks ago, those were the only sources that were not primary. I assumed they were legit, but haven't actually read them.

The only "finding" is amnesia between alters, and that's not neuroimaging I would say - but I'd need to re-read Reinders for her exact wording.

Re: last sentence, see page 49, final paragraph starting with "Besides (inter-identity) amnesia..." I think that covers it, but I'm doing this quickly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have all these articles so I will read them today and let you know what I think. 2003 is not that old, and it seems taking it out would be not showing all sides of the research, it's not ancient or anything. I'm more concerned about the wording, if it's not contradiction (and I trust you here). Let's put this on hold until I read it and I'll suggest any content/clarity changes (and of course you are free to do the same). Thanks Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh and as for the last sentence, I'm ok with it now. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Reinders 2008 states on pg 50 states "...Neuroimaging has been shown to be a powerful tool revealing that genuine dissociative identity disorder is related to deviant amygdalar and hippocampal volumes..." which seems like a significant finding that should be documented in this section, no? Am I missing it somehow or does it say this now (re: as well as support for amnesia between alters.)and just not go into detail? I'd like to put it in there and/or go into slightly more detail but I'm not sure exactly what is correct.Forgotten Faces (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

About the only way you'd know would be to look up the references it uses for the statement. "Genuine" obviously refers to traumatic DID, non-genuine is obviously pseudogenic, but where does iatrogenic fall? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Not sure how to reconcile that - is iatrogenic DID "genuine"? I'd say no - you can induce alters and the thought of having DID but you can't create amnesia afaik - and hypothetically they would "fail" any physical tests, don't you think? I'm open to rewording this line but would like to keep the general info in there. I still need to look up the references for those statements and have a lot of IRL work to do today but I will get to it probably late today. Forgotten Faces (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Pseudogenic means faked. Iatrogenic would generally be considered a category of it's own, but if you must choose: the term iatrogenesis implies the disorder in question is not faked and the word "genuine" allows any cause as long as the disorder isn't faked... But there is a significant difference in the level of development of alters between traumagenic and iatrogenic DID and also for research purposes it is important to differentiate between the three categories.

Regarding the deviations in the amygdalar and hippocampal volumes: these are also seen in PTSD which is why traumagenesis is considered the leading theory for DID. If a patient with iatrogenic DID does have childhood trauma you may still find these abnormalities on an MRI. On the other hand, war veterans may not have these abnormalities but may have traumagenic DID nonetheless. The cerebral bloodflow changes are DID specific but also do not seem very valuable for diagnostic purposes.

Whether or not this first sentence is contradictory hangs a bit on the word "convergent." I would suggest checking if this sentence was based on a tertiary source to weigh it against the other sources if there would have been a source supplied... JGM73 (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't usually worry too much about 2003 sources, but I understand that nine years ago is actually a long time ago in neuroimaging. So it might be best to focus on the very most recent sources in this field. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Involvement in the DID Wikipedia page

Hi everyone, let me start by saying that I am new to Wikipedia editing, and so I apologize in advance if this is not the correct forum for my question here. One of my courses is going to begin updating a number of Wikipedia pages related to repression, false memories, etc. In other words, post-graduate students will be assigned pages to update to accurately reflect the most recent literature in psychological science. I'd like to assign sections of the DID page (primarily the section on latrogenesis, but I believe updates on the introduction, and epidemiology would also be involved). However, I'm concerned about assigning this article to a student given the personal attacks I have been reading that have taken place here recently. I'm wondering if this is something that happens frequently on this topic—given the topics obvious divisiveness—and, more to the point, whether it would be wise to assign a student to this page.Jlfosternz (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jlfosternz. I think your course is a great idea, but I do think there is no guarantee that personal attacks won't happen on this subject - indeed anywhere on wikipedia, but definitely here. Right now we seems to be collaboratively editing well, but just a week ago that wasn't so. It may be unfair to give a student this topic with the amount of emotional drain it may take to not only make the edits but make sure they don't get reverted. As it is right now, I don't think any student would have a problem editing without personal attacks, but I can't see it necessarily staying that way. If you look at the archives, there has been a lot of it over the years.

Then again, a student who could successfully navigate all the issues with this topic would deserve a good grade indeed and I personally want all the (constructive) help we can get to expand the article. I too am currently wanting to expand the causes section more (already have a lot recently), including more about iatrogenesis and just more info in general on both hypothesis. Another good faith editor actually reading the literature and adding appropriately would be great.

Also, new posts like this should go on the bottom of pages and not the topic. If you can't figure out how to move it let me know. Welcome to wikipedia. Forgotten Faces (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ForgottenFaces, I may just look around for an eager student that is intersted in tackling this page, but I probably won't assign this page to anyone who doesn't volunteer. That being said, if no one volunteers, I may just have to start jumping in myself. Jlfosternz (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Jlfosternz. :) Forgotten Faces (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue in the past was editors who were only willing to acknowledge one set of opinions on DID. Wikipedia is about verfiability, not truth. In other words, the community does not care whether DID is caused by iatrogenesis, childhood trauma, or both - what we care is what reliable sources have said about the causes (and treatments, epidemiology, etc.) of DID.

If students are going to be editing here, they must understand our core content policies, including no original research (i.e. they can't analyze, discard or comment on sources, only summarize them), verifiability (i.e. all information must be verified by a reliable source), neutrality (i.e. the issue must be summarized based on the notable opinions within the scientific community as a whole, not just the parts someone agrees with, and we must represent these opinions according to their weight within said community), and what a reliable source is (medical statements require higher-quality sources; self-published sources are normally not allowed; use mostly or in this case only secondary sources such as review articles, books and textbooks on the article page). WP:NOT would also be a good page to read.

Jeffrey, your user page says you are a researcher in memory, which might mean you hold the opinion that DID is nonsense and traumatic memories are neither dissociated or repressed (or you may think the opposite). It is fine to personally hold that opinion - but what TomCloyd got blocked for was allowing that personal opinion to dictate his edits to the actual article and attempting to, based on his personal opinion, use the talk page to advocate for a specific perspective to be preferred. So long as you and your students limit your edits to identifying, summarizing and discussing reliable sources in compliance with the policies and guidelines, there should be no issue. ForgottenFaces and I disagree on what causes DID and how it should be treated - but both of us admit the other side has a place on the page, and accordingly don't argue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi WLU, nice to meet you. I understand your concern, but I, and anyone who might work on this page under our guidance, am fully aware of what Wikipedia is and is not a place for. Regardless of my side of the debate, I am also aware that within the scientific literature DID is still presently a debated topic, and I personally believe that both sides of DID debate should be well established on the page. That being said, I was specific in which topics of the page I would be looking at, and I have no intention of stretching to anything beyond my personal expertise. Which means most sections I wouldn't even touch. Also, I've looked at some of the debates in the history here, and I do feel like some people who hold similar opinions to my own have gone quite a bit too far in what they've tried to claim. In short, focus here would be updating the sections related to iatrogenesis, and I do think there should be a section specifically on the debate on DID which presents the evidence on both sides of the fence. I do hope that those are things we can all agree need to be done, but I'm all ears if you disagree with that. Jlfosternz (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that, I've sort of attempted to start that recently with the section already there on developmental theory, and WLU and I have talked about it a bit off this page. That kind of depth would do a great service to wikipedia users, I think we all agree that this is a complex topic that deserves to be explained fairly and thoroughly. The whole article could be expanded in many ways and this is surely an important one. Forgotten Faces (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you worked with Elizabeth Loftus (PMID 22257711)? Damn. I've actually corresponded with her, tried (unsuccessfully) to get a picture for her wikipedia page.

You found that article pretty fast, I don't think Acta has even sent that issue out yet! With Beth, I do imagine she would be unlikely to want a picture of herself on Wiki. She has enough problems with certain types of people (I'm assuming you know at least some of that history) as it is without one more source showing her picture (even though it takes about 2 seconds to find a picture of her with a google search).Jlfosternz (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Literally wrote the page on that (then it got erased). I actually found a full-text version but for some reason the site has been blacklisted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

'ware Dunning-Kruger effect Jeff, which makes the ignorant confident and the educated doubtful. Anyone can edit wikipedia, even me. All that is required is access to sources, of which you have plenty, and I encourage you to look beyond your areas of direct expertise. One question you might be able to answer (ideally with a, or several sources) is the split regarding DID and memory in general. I believe there's a vast divide between experimentalists (such as yourself) and clinicians who treat DID due to their differing educations and expectations regarding the science of memory, neurology and related topics. Are you aware of this split, and (more importantly) do you know of any reliable sources on the topic? The page should discuss the controversy as explicitly as possible, and a sociological or historical study of the topic would be invaluable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's also important not to give it too much weight... and consider that not everyone with DID has or claims to have recovered memories (like myself for example, I don't mind showing my bias because I can work around it pretty well). I would very much like the article not to assume 100% that it is necessarily a part of psychotherapy for DID clients. I don't know exactly how to work around that, and I know I need a source, so Jeffrey I know you are on the opposite side of where I am (but I don't doubt false memories and iatrogenesis can and do happen btw, and they are not mutually exclusive either - someone could have iatrogenic alters and genuine ones, in theory) but if we could get this in the article somehow that would do a service to it, I think. Thoughts? Also of note is many people with DID have only brief amnesias and the other dissociative symptoms are way more noticeable and bothersome - for example I personally, if somehow I don't really have DID, definitely have DDNOS without question - and many if not most people with DID are like this. There is a lot more to the syndrome than amnesia and alters. This should be easier to find sources for, today is reading day so I hope to expand some... these are just a couple things to keep in mind in case any of us come across them in literature. Just some ideas. Forgotten Faces (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Too much weight on what, the divide between experimentalists and clinicians? If it's a significant point of acrimony, the important thing to do is to avoid giving the appearance of reaching a decision; we should merely tell both sides in detail. But no matter what, the traumagenic and iatrogenic positions both deserve considerable discussion, irrespective which we personally think is correct. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, bad wording on my part. I guess what I'm saying is it's more nuanced than then just genuine/iatrogenic (and I'd also add factitious/malingered to that list)... the prototypical DID patient who has repressed most of their memories and only knows they were abused because of Courage to Heal type symptom lists is not really prototypical at all. I'm just hoping I can find something that goes into the other details thoroughly so we can include them, that's all, and wanted to ask anyone to give me a heads up if they find any material discussing this type of thing, or just to keep an eye out in general. Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I would venture much more mish-mashed, almost certainly with a mixture of "true" DID (i.e. like the extremely rare numbers found before Eve or Sybil), borderline patients who get misdiagnosed, and almost certainly some iatrogenic cases. However, when two sides aren't talking, most of that nuance goes out the window - and we end up with January's talk page. If you do see such a source that makes the case, please tell me! I read Try To Remember by Paul R. McHugh a while back and I think it went into a "his version" of the history of DID and touched on some of this, but I can't find my copy anymore. I'm hoping Jeff might know something. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad we are on the same page. I just moved so I really need to get a library card and get some stuff, it would be nice to normalize DID symptoms a little more on the page for sure. I'll definitely let you know whatever I find. And just as an aside, I believe the numbers are greater than was described say in the 1800s (was under-diagnosed), but that it is a rare mental illness, and I personally attribute non-genuine DID to more of a combo of factitious/borderline/ptsd than iatrogenesis. Neither here nor there, but that's my opinion based on personal experience. I would never attempt to figure out what is what, far be it from me to try to figure out someone else's reality and coming back to DDNOS, most of these folks (ime) do have obvious DDNOS if they don't have complete DID. I have in fact never met a DID patient who did not have other severe dissociative symptoms, so it's definitely a shame there is not more info going around. I think the Stranger in the Mirror might have went into it more, I don't own it anymore unfortunately but should grab it when I get to the library. Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I do think one of the things that needs to be worked on here is the differentiation between DID and other Dissociative disorders (not just DDNOS, but all of the other dissociative disorders). I don't think you could find many experts who would argue that people don't dissociate—although there is debate on how the dissociation works and whether it occurs at the time of trauma or whether it is a memory issue—the entire debate on DID is because it is separate from other Dissociative disorders in that it is characterized by 1)A split of the identity so that a person has multiple personalities, 2) Memories of at least one personality are 'repressed' while at least one other personality is 'in charge', and 3) Those repressed memories can be recalled later.

I bring this up now, because this is where one of the problems is going to come in with updating the Wiki page. Most of the scientific literature doesn't focus on DID itself. Instead, it focuses on the required (and distinctive) characteristics of repression and later recall of repressed information. Also, I wanted to bring it up because this is where I think some people who have argued from 'my side of the fence' have, I think, stepped a bit out of bounds with what they had to say. Jlfosternz (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Since we all seem to be on the same page, I'm sure we can do this all justice. There definitely is a pretty giant leap from chronic dissociative states involving simple identity alteration to full on alters with time loss. So I do see where you are coming from there and can see the value of discussing that and similar things in the article. Definitely have a lot to learn from you in this regard. Forgotten Faces (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, in agreement in principle, specifics will depend on sources. Unfortunately the two sides making extreme claims and refusing to collaborate (or even cite each others' works) makes our job harder. But science marches on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

So I did find something, only skimmed so far but looks like it might really help us re: other symptoms besides amnesia/alters. PDF is findable on google, but I won't link it here. Or let me know, I can send it to anyone. Forgotten Faces (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Scientific history

I'm torn on the idea, but I'm leaning towards it. I think it might be worth splitting the history section, or perhaps having a completely separate section just discussing the scientific controversy. Though the trauma/iatro information should be interstitched throughout the appropriate sections, I think there's definitely enough reliable sources and material to include a discussion of solely DID's place in the scientific community. The information on the research "bubble" could go there, as well as the DSM's various iterations of DID/MPD. I think the scientific community's history and understanding of DID is sufficiently different from the more popular attention found in most History sections that it deserves its own place. Any thoughts? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

100% agree, I was thinking about how the history section is too mish-mashed now - I'm on board. Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth bringing this up at WT:MED as a "we both agree something needs to be done" (so they don't think it's "we're arguing and we want someone to decide who is right") and ask if there they have any ideas. I can't think of any other pages that are similar in the breakdown of popular versus scientific discussions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a Research History section to address both the clinical and non-clinical research history of DID. I do think it is separate enough of an idea from it's general history to warrant a split. By the way, our semester here doesn't start for 3 more weeks, so while I think I'll be able to find an interested student to start contributing here, there probably won't be much for 4 or 5 weeks. Hopefully you two haven't already made this article perfect before then!Jlfosternz (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted an inquiry on WT:MED. :) Forgotten Faces (talk)

The possible connection between having an alter ego and having Dissociative Identity Disorder.

I am trying to clean up and revitalize the "alter ego" article and i am trying to state the possibility of there being a link between Dissociative Identity Disorder and having an alter ego. I am having trouble and i was wondering if i am to research this, what qualify as an acceptable resource ? I have started gathering information, and I think that this would be an amazing contribution to both articles. Help would be appreciated, Thank you in advance. Your opinion matters.

Tj1224 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, alter egos are more in the vein of being the complete opposite of the normal "ego" of the person, whereas "alters" (alternate personalities in DID) are more distinct and not generally "completely opposite" of the host personality - although Jekyll and Hyde does come up in both articles and a google scholar search will give you a lot of information based on that. Sorry I can't help more. Forgotten Faces (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is the one used in the DID article, and it does say it's used now as a classic case of DID in literature, but does not call them alter egos anywhere in the text. Forgotten faces (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Unable to make simple edits

New Editors to a page should have the right to make GOOD edits.

I made 2 small changes and you - WLU started a war! I do not want to spend my days on this talk page again, but I would like to be able to edit the DID page. You need to accept that others would like to work on this page. ~ty (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

1. What changes? Diffs would be helpful.
2. How are they justified by policy/policies or guideline/s? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Get real! You know what they are - you reverted them and you already replied to my references so you have seen them - quit playing games! I have to run. We will continue this when I am back. Read the WP policy about allowing new editors to work on a page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylas (talk • contribs)

If you mean the references on your talk page, that don't mention paranoia, then I have both seen them and commented on why they are irrelevant to this specific point. So if you want to keep paranoia out of the symptom list, you've yet to justify it in a meaningful way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC

Paranoia

I can't see a reason to remove "paranoia" from the list of signs and symptoms. There's a source, is it misrepresented? A brief search on google found several other more recent sources also citing paranoia as something expressed by patients with DID, suggesting it's still a concern. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that a discussion about this is occurring at User talk:Tylas#Paranoia, but I will attempt to move it here so more editors can comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Show me some GOOD research that paranoia is a symptom of DID - not fringe stuff. Nowhere have I ever seen paranoia listed as a symptom of DID - and I do read the research of experts and avoid fringe ideas. It is certainly not a common or widely accepted symptom of DID. Are you again going to stop each and EVERY change I try and make to the DID article? It's suppose to be a group work. Not a WLU (and friends that support him) article. Why do I threaten you so much! ~ty (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you define "good" research? Becuase it sounds like by "good" you mean "research I already agree with". WP:FRINGE specifies nonmainstream sources like self-published books. Psychiatry, where Ellason, Ross & Fuchs published their article, does not seem to be such a journal. My threshold for sources is whether they are reliable.

Articles on wikipedia are written in accordance with the policies and guidelines. Editors who ignore these policies and guidelines, particularly to push specific points of view, often get blocked. The P&G exist to ensure a higher quality of article that represents all relevant aspects of a topic, not just the ones certain editors like. The P&G are the rules to ensure editors can agree that even if they dislike a specific aspect of a topic, there is a way to determine if it should be included and how. For instance, I have undone your change to the DSM-V section because the rationale tab of the APA page which specifies both conversion and somatoform disorders. I'm not targetting your edits any more than I am any other editor - but your edits to date tend to have rather egregious flaws. You don't threaten me, you're an inexperienced editor who has a tendency to edit in accordance to your personal beliefs rather than what reliable sources say. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't start preaching that crap to me again! I saw how Wikipedia works! You get your buddies all together and force your agenda! I have no doubt that you will try and get me blocked. It fits your pattern. If you can't win, go to your friends. Good research is mainstream! Not that by a few people that try to discredit something. I don't threaten you as a wikipedia editor, no - but I do as someone that really has DID and knows what you are and you can't handle that. Check the link to the updated DSM 5 criteria. You will see that my edit is NOT what you claim. It is a correct edit. He he... Paranoia is a great title for this section. ~ty (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you accept that Psychiatry is not a fringe source? Do you accept that it is in fact a reliable source? Rather than again resorting to personal attacks and assuming bad faith, why not address my substantive points? It means that sometimes the page will contain information that you personally disagree with - but it also ensures that well-sourced information you agree with will remain. Note that I have not contacted any other editors, thus arguing against me trying to "gang up on you with my buddies". All I'm trying to do is show why I am editing the way I am, and asking you to adhere to the same sets of rules and guidelines. Hardly unreasonable. I don't give a shit whether or not you have DID, I'm just asking you to edit in accordance with wikipedia's rules. That is hardly unreasonable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC

There is NO assuming here! I have already been your victim! Both edits I made are correct. It does not matter what I agree with. I might have my own ideas of how the DSM 5 should be, but I posted what IS! Also Paranoia is not an acceptable symptom of DID. You have it confused with Schizophrenia. I have presented evidence. You are just sticking to your same old arguments. No one is right but WLU.~ty (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What evidence have you presented? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You have not contacted them YET! But you did already threaten to take me to the Admin board where many of them hang out.~ty (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand the difference between content and behaviour issues. I asked you to remove a rather egregious personal attack from your talk page; if you don't, I will raise this behavioural issue at ANI. The content discussion is happening now, and like most of my efforts to date it consists of an attempt to get you to read and understand our content policies. I see no need to bring the content issues up at ANI. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It was already removed before you posted this threat to me. Yes, I do know the difference between behavior and content issues. That has been on my page for a very long time and you did not care until I came back to edit. ~ty (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ty, I personally wrote like 90% of that section now, and I assure you that reference is correct. Also, in my personal experience (which doesn't mean jack shit on wikipedia), I have experienced paranoia as a symptom of my DD. Paranoia doesn't have to be a psychotic symptom. Have you never thought someone was talking to you behind your back, or unreasonably feared that a past abuser would somehow come back from the dead (or whatever)? That is paranoia. It should be on the list unless you can prove that the citing is incorrect. Feel free to do that. I do not have my articles anymore unfortunately - my hard drive crashed and somehow my backup virtual data account got messed up. Also I am mostly computerless for the next few weeks so I won't be making my own edits until at least then. I am going to be doing research on DID and other dissociative disorders to write some articles with some help, so I'll be doing it anyway and might as well help wikipedia. Gotten a bit of wikipedia fever going on. Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay Sweetie. I trust you do make it a good article. Take a deeper look at the paranoia thing. That is not usually considered to be a symptom, instead it helps distinguish Schizophrenia from DID. Also the proposed DSM 5 is updated as per the edit I did. Both were correct edits. Keep up the good work. I will spend my time elsewhere if you have this under control and will check back time to time.~ty (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've looked into the citation used, and it is a primary source that is quite old. I will try to find a secondary source that discusses the issue, but as is I do not consider it a great source to include and would prefer to either demote or remove paranoia from the list. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

After looking for a while, I could not find a recent, secondary source that identified paranoia as a symptom of DID. Normally if something like this is a well-recognized symptom, it would be quite easy to verify with reference to MEDRS. Having this much trouble suggests that these findings were not replicated beyond this one group, or perhaps there some other reason that paranoia is not considered a symptom (several sources alluded to DID and borderline personality disorder being related, with paranoia being a symptom associated with the latter rather than the former, perhaps that is it). I will be removing paranoia from the list of symptoms, please discuss before replacing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed several bits of text from the signs and symptoms section [1]. The biggest thing is the removal of Rodewall, 2011 (PMID 21278542). This is a primary source, which examined a sample of around 100. Despite being recent, it's quite new (and most importantly - primary). In most cases it was redundant to other citations, in one it wasn't and I removed that text. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I guess this shows my inexperience in understanding primary/secondary sources. Thanks for fixing it. I'll have my new computer soon and want to start reading up more. Forgotten Faces (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Meh, it's a learning process. Primary/secondary It's an important distinction, it helps avoid cherry-picking sources to support some points and ignore others. Generally if a publication that identifies an experimental group, it's probably not a good idea to use it. There are exceptions, but they are pretty rare. It is possible to use the introduction/literature review as a source in these sorts of articles if you're careful - but generally for things that are widely accepted or already known, in which case there's probably a secondary source somewhere anyway.

If you don't already do so, I suggest searching on pubmed before google scholar - it has an option to restrict outputs to only review and meta-analytic articles, which is very helpful (once you've got search results, the option is in the left-hand column). From there, google scholar may be useful in turning up full-text versions. Google books are usually considered secondary sources as well, but the quality and reliability are much more of a crapshoot. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Better

WLU, thank you for (finally) allowing the edits I suggested. Now those parts of the page are correct - according to the vast amount of information that I have read on the subject of DID. Perhaps it will work like this - so you can continue to micro-manage every bit of this page, yet you know little about DID. If at least I and others can point out to you the errors on the article, then you can look into them and fix them. I don't think WP is suppose to work like this, with you being Lord and Master, but whatever works. Thank you for making those changes! You now have the proposed DSM 5 and paranoia issues on the page correct. In fact, I now agree that the entire list of symptoms listed on the article are the currently accepted symptoms of DID. ~ty (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference between "I personally don't think this is a symptom of DID" and "the source supporting inclusion of paranoia as a symptom is a primary source" is significant and if you can't appreciate it, you shouldn't be editing the page. The similarities between our edits are coincidental and differ substantially in compliance with policy. It is not sufficient to "know a lot about DID" - you must demonstrate this knowledge through the verification of the text through reference to reliable sources in a neutral manner. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That is just more excuses WLU. I do know the difference. You just want what you want on the page, no matter what is correct. You only want those here that you can control and I WONT BE CONTROLLED by you or anyone else.~ty (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed DSM 5

Updated April-30-12

Disruption of identity characterized by two or more distinct personality states or an experience of possession. This involves marked discontinuity in sense of self and sense of agency, accompanied by related alterations in affect, behavior, consciousness, memory, perception, cognition, and/or sensory-motor functioning. These signs and symptoms may be observed by others or reported by the individual. Recurrent gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal information, and/or traumatic events that are inconsistent with ordinary forgetting. The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. The disturbance is not a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice. (Note: In children, the symptoms are not attributable to imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.) The symptoms are not attributable to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during Alcohol Intoxication) or another medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures).

Specify if:

With prominent non-epileptic seizures and/or other sensory-motor (functional neurologic) symptoms

Rollback

I've rolled back all of Tylas' recent edits. Here is my reasoning:

• The lead uses a direct quote from the DSM. Altering it flat-out wrong, and I shouldn't have to explain why.
• The DSM also does not use the term "alter" or "alters", nor does Nijenhuis et al.

Who cares, the "rest of the world" (i.e., a large clinical population) uses these terms freqently. As long we aren't stating that the DSM uses the language, it's fine. The term is short for "altered state" and I guess the DSM is using the term "distinct personality state." Daniel Santos (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• The removal of "much" from the sentence "There is controversy regarding the validity of this disease" is an idiosyncratic preference that ignores the fact that there is indeed considerable controversy over DID, as evidenced by the numerous references to this point.
• Spelling of "characterized" should not be changed per WP:ENGVAR.
• The statement "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for DID include..." should remain as is, as the verb "include" refers to "criteria", which is plural. As in "The DSM (singular) includes information on DID, and its criteria (plural) include..."
• The DSM is again the citation for the statement "At least two personalities take control of the individual's behavior on a recurrent basis..." The DSM does not use the term "parts of the personality", it actually states "the presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states", not parts or fragments. I've adjusted the text to indicate the terms are a quotation from the DSM, and deleted the word "personalities" as the previous sentence incorporates what is taking control.
• I've replaced "personality" in the sentence "In addition to the unique characteristics of multiple personality states with amnesia..." as again this is drawn from the DSM which uses the term "personality states".
• While Dell is the source for the list of the "wide range of symptoms present", it is a primary study of 220 participants, and should not be used per WP:MEDRS and I have removed it. If a secondary source exists that has similar criticisms and corroboration, then I have no issue with the list or a variant thereof being replaced.

Wikipedia:MEDRS does not explicitly forbid primary sources and you should know the policies well enough by now that you can't claim to accidentally misuse them. Before removing something for using primary sources, please re-read the policy and make sure that the use of the primary source truly warrents revision or deletion of article verbiage. Under no circumstances is the fact that something is a primary source a sole justification for removing the source its self! Daniel Santos (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have no idea why the statement "...and did not consider the possibility of iatrogenic induction of DID" was removed (more accurately - I believe it was not removed for a policy or guideline-based reason, since Reinders does indeed verify this point on page 47).
• Though I have little doubt that the statement "The concept of "alters" or "alternate personality" is the distinguishing characteristic of DID" is true, Sar, 2011 (Vedat is the author's first name) doesn't actually verify this point - quite the opposite, Sar states on the very first page of the paper that the difference between DID and DDNOS is a matter of severity rather than qualitative differences. To replace this, a citation actually making the point is required.
• The statement "Psychiatrist Colin Ross and many other well recognized researchers disagree..." may be factually accurate, but the fact is that section is verified by a single reference to Ross, 2009. Adding in the "...and many other well recognized researchers..." misrepresents the source.
• The wikipedia page for complex post-traumatic stress disorder is hyphenated and should not be changed to a redirect page merely because an editor prefers that version.

Also note that I removed a primary source referencing electrophysiological dysfunction, but that's unrelated to the revert. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I will get back to this as time allows.~ty (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to policies and guidelines justifying why your edits were appropriate and my revert was not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You know the policies! I have stated them many times. YOU won't let anyone edit that you do not micro-manage. You pick and choose parts of research to post and call it valid. Then you sit as judge and jury as to what parts of articles can be referenced. You delete anything, such as the Howell information that discredits your believe that DID is NOT caused by trauma.~ty (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything substantive to say about the points made above? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You just want to play games and keep me on the talk page. Been there with you. Done that. Not doing it again! ~ty (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to your rationale. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The main problem is that you use the word "Personality" to confuse those that come here to find out what DID is. Most of the information on the DID WP page is cherry picked by WLU to try and support his POV rather support mainstream information. This is not a challenge WLU. I don't want to be editor supreme. I just want the correct information on the DID article.~ty (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Gosh it would be nice if you would stop insulting me.

Gosh, it would be nice if you did not DELETE every SINGLE edit I make! I have come here before and was really nice to you. You got an expert on DID banned from the page, in fact you have done the same to many who have DID. You are like a vulture here, watching over every single edit. You do not understand DID, yet you want to control everything that goes in this article. This is suppose to be a community project - it does not belong to JUST YOU! So, yes - you frustrate the heck out of me as well as a whole community of people who suffer with and treat DID.~ty (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I started this section to illustrate why I made the changes, referencing policy and guideline where appropriate. I didn't make any idly. You claim I don't understand DID, yet I can verify my changes quite easily with reference to reliable sources. This suggests that your understanding of DID is not representative of the opinions of all experts in the field, and you are making edits solely to substantiate your understanding. I do not wish to control the article, I just want it to be accurate and neutral. That means leaving in criticisms, not editing direct quotes and not deleting sources out of personal preference. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As I have said. You cherry pick what you want in the article -throw in a reference. That is not understanding. That is copy and pasting.04:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In order for you to claim everything is sad and wrong, you need to demonstrate this using sources. Your recent edits deleted several sourced statements, but added nothing. I'll check the sources your statements are appended to, if they do not support your point explicitly, I will rollback your latest edits. This appears to be yet more insistence that your understanding of DID is the correct one, achieved only by ignoring the considerable number of contradictory publications. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No, WLU - this is yet another example that you do not understand DID, thus you copy and paste or re-word parts of articles and call that facts, yet it is out of context of the whole article and not the general direction of the psychology community as a whole. It's just what you want to look at. Please, read more literature. You have stated before that you have no interest in reading or understanding the traumatic viewpoint at all. Once you have done this, then comment. Until then, you are only taking a stance of a minute chunk of the community. ~ty (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

In the past you have discounted information that says that if you abuse a child it can do them harm, but this study shows this is certainly not the case - I do know you will give a list of reasons to not use this study.~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Which study? Do you mean this one that you try to link to below? That's a primary source and shouldn't be used. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I knew you would say that! I agree that is should not be used, but it should be read and understood! This is the direction that researchers are going - they are starting to understand trauma and what is really going on. You appear to want WP to report the dark ages. That can go in the history section. There are many articles and books that report this same sort of thing. I have listed them before, yet you ignore the references and delete the edits.~ty (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

None of this addresses the fact that it is a primary source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There is only a lot because you have cherry picked research that has been discounted by mainstream psychology as bunk, but even so it makes researchers jump through hoops to disprove things that have a shred of reality to them - rather than the whole story.[User:Tylas|~ty]] (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That discounts the numerous sources that quite clearly state it is controversial. I believe I've read Howell, it's a book chapter that is a lot of summary of the researcher's individual experience, and less the overall literature. The articles I've recently acquired make the point that the research base hasn't changed much, and hasn't changed the controversy. I'll integrate them at some point. As a matter of fact, peer reviewed articles are much closer to the mainstream than book chapters, since they are peer reviewed and thus forced to undergo a more thorough scrutiny. Further, the articles I've been focusing on have discussed both sides of the controversy, not just one while ignoring the other. So no, no cherry picking. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Reinders, A.A.T. S. et al. ‘Fact or factitious: a psychobiological study of authentic and simulated dissociative identity states’ PLoS ONE (29 June 2012) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039279~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC) http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iop/news/records/2012/June/multiple-personality-disorder.asp

This is nothing but cherry picking. I really doubt you have read Howell's books. Before you claimed you have no interest in reading information on DID unless the research claims that DID is NOT caused by trauma. ~ty (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Another Rollback made by WLU is the term used by Nijenhuis - One of the authors of the Haunted Self. The term Nijenhuis uses is ANP. I am extremely comfortable with structural dissociation and ANP's and EP's. I would love to use these terms for the article. I do happen to have the Haunted Self here with me in a hotel room. What would you like to know about this book and Nijenhuis?~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"While Dell is the source....." - This article you removed is an excellent source and should be included in the WP page. A vast host of research says the same as Dell's 2006 research article. Do you even pay attention to how many use a certain article as a reference? You keep looking at your WP rules as black and white. Things are not that simple. What point in Dell's article exactly do you have problems with? It's a vast work that covers a huge amount of research.~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Not an excellent source, a primary source and thus inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"Though I have little doubt that the statement "The concept of "alters...

Cherry picked and out of context again. Read Dell 2006 again to understand that an Alter is only one of many characteristics of DID. Which type of DDNOS (DDNEC) They do vary. Severity is a word taken out of context. It needs a lot of explanation. It means that with DID the dissociative barriers are more intact than with DDNOS-1.~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Another of your arguments from the top paragraph. A-D are the minimum criterion to receive a DX of DID. There are many more symptoms. Dell's 2006 article that WLU just deleted, is a great summary of them - something that took 5 years of research by this brilliant man. The DSM shows the MINIMUM criteria for a DX - as anyone who is actually qualified to DX knows. This means that ALL things listed in the DSM are required criteria for this DX and receive equal weight. Another problem is when lay persons try and use these definitions, not knowing exactly what they mean.~ty (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A. The presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states (each with its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and self).

B. At least two of these identities or personality states recurrently take control of the person's behavior.

C. Inability to recall important personal information that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness.

D. 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). Note: In children, thesymptoms are not attributable to imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.~ty (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Dell is a primary source, a review of a single sample of participants, and should not be used. Do you have a review article, a secondary source as required by WP:MEDRS, to source the list of symptoms? If not, we should not replace the list. A primary point here is that if you want a basic bit of information in the lead, it should be easy to source it to multiple authors, the point should be controversial. If Nijenhuis is the sole author who uses a specific set of terms, it should not be in the lead, it should be in the body. More later. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Both of us know the real reason you now removed Dell - since it has been on here for a while and you did not care less. You have probably now actually read it and know it totally discounts your POV~ty (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

posttraumatic is spelled thus and if it is not this way on the article it's because it has been changed recently. I can't say I like it that way, but it is how it is suppose to be.~ty (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

WLU, be patient! I will add and review reference starting tomorrow. It's too difficult to do on this tiny netbook in a hotel room away from all my references. Thank you so much for allowing me to work on the article and not reverting things as soon as I have done them today.~ty (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You may think you know why I removed Dell, but I don't care. All I care about is that it is a primary source. If you want to change the spelling of posttraumatic stress disorder, do that first because right now that is the spelling of the page on wikipedia. I believe it has been debated at length, so you should review the talk page archives for such a discussion.

Once again your discussion seems to consist mostly of accusations against my motives rather than justifications per policies, guidelines and sources. This is not helpful and doesn't make the page better. Please justify your edits per the P&G, or stop making them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have argue that such a discussion can indeed be helpful if your motives are to keep the article a misrepresentation of DID, based upon your own personal view point. I recall encountering quite similar problems when I tried to improve the article. I've been out of the loop on this article for too long. Daniel Santos (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a feeling that most have encountered this same battle when trying to work on this article. I look forward to some help and am excited that I am finally able to contribute to the DID article. I have hope that others that have been silenced can return and do the same.~ty (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Once Again! You revert EVERY SINGLE edit I make! Then you will go to my page and tell me that I am in a revert war - a war you always start anytime I make one edit!~ty (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I asked you to be patient and wait for tomorrow when I get home for the references. Please quit deleting every single edit I make! This has gone on for far too long! Why don't you see this as an attack! It is! Or at least it should be. People other than you and those that you micromanage should be able to work on this page!~ty (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Kudos

I actually like much of what you have under signs and symptoms. Good job.04:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Lead

Following [protocol] for the lead paragraph I have described the 3 terms that make up the label DID.

Describe: 1 - Dissociative 2 - Identity 3 - Disorder

3. Dissociative identity disorder DID, also known as Multiple Personality Disorder in the ICD-10[1]) is a psychiatric diagnosis.

1. Dissociative: Dissociative identity disorder DID, also known as Multiple Personality Disorder in the ICD-10[1]), is a psychiatric diagnosis. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) one of the essential features of Dissociative Identity Disorder is full dissociation, also called switching, which takes place between distinct personality states. In addition, at least two personality states routinely control behavior, each with associated state dependent memory, also known as dissociative amnesia (amnesia between personality states). Daniel J. Siegel describes clinical dissociation as blocking access to memory and emotions, body numbness or impairments to the continuity of consciousness across states of mind."

2. Identity: Dissociative Identity Disorder is thought to be a psychological trauma based disorder caused by pathological levels of stress during the earliest years of childhood, prior to normal integration. One does not begin life with an integrated mind. For DID to occur there must be disruption in the normal integrative processes of consciousness that occurs during (very early) childhood. E. Howell explains that during infancy behavior is organized as a set of discrete behavioral states which link and group together in sequences over time. An infant needs interpersonal attention, support and encouragement to interconnect their self-states and the varying contexts of their lives." Psychological trauma (the original trauma in those with DID is usually a failure of secure attachment with a primary caregiver) impedes linkage. Abuse will not always result in trauma, but if trauma occurs then the result is dissociation and there is a psychobiological pathway for all trauma-related disorders. Clinical trauma is defined as the event(s) that cause dissociation.

Again, following [protocol] I move on and begin work on the rest of the lead. "1. -- The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—

2. including any prominent controversies..."

2011-2012 "has been a time for taking stock of progress in the field of dissociative disorders and complex trauma," but controversy does exist. It is not the existence of Dissociative Identity Disorder that is in question, it is the etiology of the trauma model of mental disorders in general that brings with it the usual heated debate. Those who oppose a trauma based etiology claim that identities are created via an iatrogenic effect of certain psychotherapeutic practices or by popular interest. Colin A. Ross points out the errors of logic and scholarship that the quite vocal disbelievers of trauma based disorders, Piper and Merskey, have made in their publications concerning DID. There has been passionate debate as to the origin of DID throughout history

3. -- Dissociative Identity Disorder is less common than other dissociative disorders, occurring in approximately 10% of dissociative disorder cases and 0.5-3% of the general population. Females tend to outnumber males in this disorder, resulting in about a 9:1 ratio. Diagnosis is often difficult as there is considerable co-morbidity with other conditions and many symptoms overlap with other types of mental illness. Dissociative disorders, including DID are often mistaken for other disorders by those that are not trained or educated in in trauma psychology.

Thank you for the fix 24.84.200.123 ! ~ty (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms

I did not want to change much beyond the lead, but I started to dig into the signs and symptoms and find many problems that I just cannot leave there. There were changes to the direct quote from the DSM IV. That is easy to clean up, but then I go below that note the first sentence here basically says the same as the last and the middle section is far from inclusive, selecting just a few items to focus on.

So... I am going to dive into this section. I would like to explain what the DSM IV criteria is and give references for those explanations.

Daily functioning can vary from severely impaired to normal to high.

Other features that may be essential to the condition include chronic depersonalization and derealization, disturbances with memory, identity confusion and auditory hallucinations that seem to come from inside the patient's own head.

The clinical presentation, level of symptom severity and level of daily functioning varies widely.

Oh my... this whole page needs some reorganization. I am just moving things around so they make sense. Please be patient. ~ty (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Trauma Model

Working on this section, but it will take some time. There is a lot of good stuff in there, but much is the same things

Concerning this message

Jarble, what is confusing. I think the page is getting organized rather than complicated in my opinion. Now it flows. It makes sense. It explains DID. The terminology used is common to those of us that have DID. It is not over the top scientific by any means. Please show me the text with issues and I would be extremely happy to look at it. :) In the meantime, I am going to stop for a bit and do some proofreading to make sure all is in order and look for vague statements, etc... Thank You.~ty (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I see a problem! I keep a copy in my sandbox and accidentally copied an old one from that to the DID page - since I see no reverts, that is all that could have happened! I am going through it again to try and find all the errors. Let me know other areas that could be more clear. I appreciate the help.

~ty (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I like this new lead, but it still has some issues that need to be ironed out.

• You give a description of clinical dissociation that isn't consistient with the main article. Your description inclucdes "body numbness or impairments" which I did not see in the main article. I guess the main article needs to be updated to include information about the characteristics of clinical dissociation (i.e., when it is pathology). However, this sentence is attempting to describe dissociation in the context of DID, where these symptoms are quite applicable. Still, I think this can be worded better.

Fixed. Good suggestion. Thank you ~ty (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• The final sentence in the opening paragraph "but if trauma occurs then the result is clinical dissociation" should probably be more clear that it's talking about early childhood trauma (maybe?). I know that's the topic of the previous sentence, maybe somebody else can toss in an opinion about that. (As an aside, most of the older literature described this phemonena as a case of very young children not having yet developed more sophistocated coping skills and are forced to restort to disccociation when sever stress occurs. I'm behind on the literature on this particular issue.)

Fixed. Good suggestion. That would take a lot of explaining that might be best done on the wp dissociation page. Thank you ~ty (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Believe it nor not, there are actually articles published as recently as 2011 (that I am aware of) that call into question the existence of DID its self! So the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph is not correct to my knowledge. However, the lead is not the place to explore the controversy in depth and is treated far too much here. The bulk of this should be moved to the controversy section. I think that what's important for the lead is that we present the basic information: what DID is (which I think the first paragraph does fairly well), a little about the controversy and some well-sourced statistics should be enough.

Daniel Santos (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. Done.~ty (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder Today

I see some unsourced statements in this section.

• While the "10% of the general population" may indeed be true, it needs to be sourced. If there are studies that can back up the 10% number, it can stay as-is. However, my (admittedly out-dated) understanding is that various clinicians have various numbers that are estimates based upon their clinical work. These numbers are legit for WP, as long as they are presented accurately (i.e., as estimates by experts). This is a point that people love to bicker about, so I think we should strive for as much accuracy here as possible. The science clearly desmonstrates is that its far more prevelant than previously thought, so the information is quite important and relevant.

I am glad for some helpful company in here. I had the exact number on my to do list - since I just read through the etiology. There seems to be conflicting numbers throughout the article. Thank you so much for pointing all this out to me and not just reverting all I do!~ty (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• The intermixing of information with DDNOS is a bit cluttered here. It is indeed the case that many suvivors of severe child abuse end up with DDNOS and not DID. However, we can't include their numbers under the DID umbrella, since we're talking about the specific diagnosis of DID. However, it is appropriate if you present the information about the relationship between diagnosies (sourced, of couse) and then present the numbers that represent the defined spectrum of disorders. IMO, its fine to work on knowledge from previous studies lacking sources, if the sources are added soon thereafter. Else, unsourced information is legitimately subject to deletion (even if it's accurate and well-worded). This is my opionion because I find that this paragraph contributes well to the article.

Daniel Santos (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again Daniel! I deleted them and agree with you. I do want to make the article clean! I always strive for A+ work. It's time to make this a top article.~ty (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Question - So much in the article is copy and paste and taken out of context, which is totally misleading - but it has a reference. We want to reword, not copy, but keep the meaning as close to the original authors as possible - correct?~ty (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• History Section - It seems too long. Thoughts? I read a new book today - (2009) Treating DID by S. Krakaur. The history section (including controversy) is outstanding and of course, like the title says, it went into treatment. I will have to share some of the best parts on the DID page.

• Also, I have a question that really bugs me and I can't get a straight answer from anything I have read - granted I stay away from general media stories. I keep reading that there is controversy, understanding of course that people use that word to sensationalize and generate interest in a subject, even in research papers, but speaking total down to earth - am I correct that both sides of that controversy admit that DID exists?

The FM crowd must believe DID exists to say it can be created through iatrogenic methods. (Off the topic, but the trauma crowd does not argue that DID symptoms can come from iatrogenic methods.

Is the debate that some don't believe that DID can be caused by trauma at all and all of us with DID had it created in therapy or through media even if we were never exposed to it by either route?

This is why I had in the top section that the debate is about how DID is caused. Not that DID exists.

If the debate is that DID exists at all, would that not be too extreme of a POV and minute of a population to put on WP? ~ty (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, just, WOW. You are so sucked into your own extreme POV on this topic that you don't appear to know what the various critics of DID even say. No, you don't have to believe a disorder really exists to say that the *symptoms* are caused iatrogenically. That's like saying that the people who say so-called possessed people are just responding in a way that fits in with their religious tradition are therefore arguing spiritual possession is real. You don't even seem to understand the basic meanings of these words, and you then use your lack of understanding to create straw man arguments. You also certainly have no clue on what is "too extreme". Over the past several years, the general consensus of experts is that DID is not a naturally-occurring disorder. This is not extreme, this is the common professional view. Now, of course people whose livelihoods depend on having patients think this is a real disorder caused by some terrible trauma (that most of the time never really happened) in their childhood are going to disagree. That's like saying that snake oil salesmen all say their snake oil is beneficial and wonderful and trying to claim that people who say that it's all a scam are somehow "too extreme" to be included. DreamGuy (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. I do believe in both the iatrogenic and traumatic views as I have stated and referenced in the article. If you have problems with exact words, please do go and edit those, but don't revert the entire thing. Have you read the research in 2012? Or are you looking at old data? There is a big difference from creating a temp alter and having DID from childhood. How would you state the difference? I am very open to suggestions. Please quit attacking and accusing. I will show you article that say different from you. Those people are the experts - the ones cited, not you Sir. That is your POV that people write and believe such things because of their livelihoods.~ty (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me add that I just started to really work on the controversy section and would enjoy your help and input on this. I in no way want to make it one sided, in fact, I was trying to find information to lend credit to the sociocongnitive view - but had to be away all day. I would also love help on the history. ~ty (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The "symptoms of DID" part is changed at your request. Is there anything else that you find unsatisfactory?~ty (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap! You are one sick puppy DreamGuy! I mean no offense, I really mean that compassionately. You believe the this vast number of people diagnosed with DID are done so in order that "snake-oil salesmen" type therapists can make bookoos of money -- that's exceedingly cynical to say the least. Then you're saying that the disorder doesn't exist and they alledged survivors are just "making it up" -- that's pretty harsh. Was the Jewish Holocaust also made up? Daniel Santos (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing and WP:OWN problems just completely off the scale

You know, I thought that Tylas had said he was leaving forever after the sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation and his other bad behavior, but it looks like he was just waiting for other editors to stop paying attention so he could completely take over. He made the vast majority of the last 1,000 edits all by himself (!!!!!!), being basically a total rewrite of the version that was put together through a hard-fought consensus. The previous version as it existed, and which I reverted to, was already substantially slanted toward the DID-is-real camp (mischaracterizing the full extent of the controversy, hiding the belief that the diagnosis is not real/caused by therapists behind jargon most readers do not understand, etc.), but the one Tylas came up with was just completely off the scale bad.

Let me put this simply: This is not how Wikipedia works. You don't get to take over an article completely by aggressive edits. You reverted WLU until he gave up, used the talk page to talk yourself about how you thought your own changes were good, and totally ignored the entire basis of what Wikipedia is for.

This will not stand. I will try to go through the differences between the two versions looking for anything in Tylas' version that is acceptable, but since the problems it introduced were off the scale bad it had to be reverted in full,and, again, the version it went back to is still pretty bad also.

Controversial edits needs to have consensus. These most recent changes absolutely do not. Please get consensus before making any changes. In other words, exactly what Tylas was told over and over and over again back in January. The rules don't change just because some of us weren't paying as close attention as they should. DreamGuy (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please quite being irrational DreamGuy, but at least your are not swearing at me this time. I am sorry to burst your bubble by my return, but a human does have a change of mind now and then. You tried to accuse me of being a sock puppet of Tom Cloyd, if I remember right, but the charge was dismissed and no one ever brought them to my attention other than you. In other words, it was just your accusal and nothing more. I am a she, not a he - which you know since you were looking me up off WP last time I tried to work on this page and you got so angry at me for wanting any changes at all. I am quite welcome to anyone helping edit, but I am not going to play your game again of staying on the talk page to reach some sort of agreement with you. That just ended in a long battle with nothing being done to the page - which I have to assume is your goal. There have been 2 editors in that last several days that I have been working on the DID article and I have gone to their page and welcomed their edits: Daniel Santos and jcarroll. The version that you put back is far from a version all editors agree on. It was a version that a couple of guards stood by not allowing changes to. Please educate yourself on current literature on DID and you will see the direction, I was in the MIDDLE of working on, was correct - which did very much include the controversy. There was a section on sociocognitive and controversy, which I believe are the 2 sections you have stock in. You are not the sole editor for this article. I simply want to share my knowledge of DID on WP. What I wrote stands but you are more than welcome to help me and others who have interest work on it, but do not revert it. That was just wrong. I did not do "aggressive edits"! I did them slowly - oh so slowly in fact - most things one at a time so anyone could come in at any time and question anything. Daniel Santos did just that and I worked on his excellent suggestions. I did not revert WLU until he gave up. Again, I doubt I have ever been able to have ONE edit stand on this page until now. In case this version is reverted again, for those watching please see the version that I have been working on - step by step in my sandbox and compare the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tylas/sandbox ~ty (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Views of the Sociocognitive Group

Take a look at this abstract from a 2012 Review that I added to the article! This is certainly a pro-iatrogenic view. I have no problem adding this view in the proper place in the article as Daniel Santos pointed out to me.

Abstract Dissociation and Dissociative Disorders Challenging Conventional Wisdom <-- Conventional is the Traumatic View

Conventional wisdom holds that dissociation is a coping mechanism triggered by exposure to intense stressors. Drawing on recent research from multiple laboratories, we challenge this prevailing posttraumatic model of dissociation and dissociative disorders. Proponents of this model hold that dissociation and dissociative disorders are associated with (a) intense objective stressors (e.g., childhood trauma), (b) serious cognitive deficits that impede processing of emotionally laden information, and (c) an avoidant information-processing style characterized by a tendency to forget painful memories. We review findings that contradict these widely accepted assumptions and argue that a sociocognitive model better accounts for the extant data. We further propose a perspective on dissociation based on a recently established link between a labile sleep–wake cycle and memory errors, cognitive failures, problems in attentional control, and difficulties in distinguishing fantasy from reality. We conclude that this perspective may help to reconcile the posttraumatic and sociocognitive models of dissociation and dissociative disorders.

I've integrated it pretty thoroughly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

New Edits

Thanks for the fix 212.156.92.130! ~ty (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend : Thank you for your help editing

I would love to correct errors but I am not sure this is one. Did you mean that the criteria I have below by the DSM IV is not full dissociation? You put: not in citation

DSM IV: At least two of these identities or personality states recurrently take control of the person's behavior

This is what This is what full dissociation is.

Does the DSM IV use the term "full dissociation"? I've never heard that term used. Do you mean that there are at least two identities that are "fully dissociated" e.g. none of them have a clue about the others? That all the personalities are completely independent? There needs to be a citation for that statement. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Tylas, do you realize that one editor (you) has edited this article more than all the other editors put together?[2] - and that's with an estimated lag for en.wikipedia.org: 4 days, 22 hours! Please consider what you are doing.

and what is that spinning brain doing at the top of the article? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew - I did not see the comment above. What you do not see from those stats is that until the last several days I have never been able to do an edit without it being reverted as quick as I made it! I mean like instant zap! The reason it shows so many edits is that I did them one by one, for the most part, right here on the DID page so others could pitch in and help. All those edits were now reverted to WLU's version, so you could again say I have never been allowed to make one edit - no matter what the stats show. The spinning brain I was going to put some text in it, but never had the chance. I think it far better shows what DID is than a picture of something like Jekyll and Hyde. So many people have the wrong idea about what DID is. It is a disorder of the mind, not some freak show where people switch from one part of the personality to another for others enjoyment. ~ty (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Again Mathew! I am so happy to have some help here! I see that I need to explain on the page the definition. Thank you! Rather than me explain, I shall do so in the words of E. Howell. "The phenomenon generally considered most characteristic of DID is switching: Different internal identities can be prone to suddenly taking executive charge, in effect pushing the identity that had previously been in charge, out of charge. This generally results in amnesia on the part of the identity that had been pushed aside for the events that occurred while the other identity was in control Switching is also known as full dissocation" She cites: Dell 2009 ~ty (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

hi Tylas. Are you being careful to follow WP:MEDRS? I believe you can't select the words of one author as the "reliable source". And be careful to follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mathew. I will look at it. So that is Howell and Kluft. That makes 2 right. Actually, I can use any term, it does not matter to me at all, but I believe many authors understand full dissociation this way. I will study the page you gave me and put it to full use! Thank you again! ~ty (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

it matters to wikipedia though. If you find multiple reliable sources, stating that "full dissociation" is a common term, that would be good, though I don't think the DSM uses it or recognizes it. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will try and find every instance in the article and repair it! I am also working on links to references such as [1] - I thought some bot comes by and does that!~ty (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

also, Kluft, R. (1993) is a very old source, almost 20 years old. And some of the article appears to be copied from somewhere else as the footnotes are not clickable. e.g. ' "patients with a dissociative disorder appear to benefit from treatment that specifically focuses on dissociative pathology." [3][4][7][16]' - what are these sources? Can you clarify? Thanks. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they go to the references at the bottom. I need to know how to do those correctly please. I am working on it right now, but having problems.~ty (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I found this the help page on how to use a ref more than once. I will fix all those ref asap!~ty (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

also, Psychiatrist Colin Ross did indeed push the DDD diagnosis, but there are also respectable reliable sources that provided evidence that it is iatrogenic. I believe it is still not settled. But if you can provide multiple reliable sources saying otherwise, then please do so. You can see how the court system, the medical establishment etc. were mistaken about the FM syndrome. So you must be very careful with your sourcing. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again Mathew.

History

I spent the last 2 days reading about the history of DID. FM and SG people are going to love this!~ty (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry to leave the history section as is for the night, but I will work on it as soon as I wake. There are so many exciting things in history that pertain directly to DID I would like to get in there. ~ty (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Weasel Words

.. some people say, many scholars state, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says ...

Okay, someone just threw this at the top of the page. I will gladly go through the article and look for these problems. Help with this would be wonderful! ~ty (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Revert to last stable version

Based on this discussion, I believe there is support to revert to the last stable version and work forward from there. I would like to do so in the next day or so. I would actually like to use this version which incorporates text from a 2011 review article on the dissociative disorders (changes here) and some other fixes.

Awaiting comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly better than Tylas' version, but I reiterate that we should not be hiding the controversy behind jargon that our readers are not typically going to understand, and we cannot ignore the most notable aspects of this topic, such as the Sybil case. You keep presenting a compromise version as one that meets WP:NPOV but which still ends up being slanted because of the obtuseness of the language being used and extreme detail being given in certain areas where other, more well known aspects, are quite underrepresented. I would argue that the last stable version of this article was probably back in 2011 sometime, but of course I welcome improvements. DreamGuy (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There have been numerous review articles published in 2012 alone on a variety of DID-related topics that need to be integrated, and the 2011 version had a lot of primary sources in it that I know I added something like 4 or 5 years ago. I think what the article needs is expansion, probably spin-off articles, and definite updating. I would urge caution about using and relying solely or even largely on sources from the ISSTD (I'd really like to see a source from the iatrogenic perspective talking about that organization) but they do represent the traumagenic side of things. DG, I disagree that the iatrogenic is the majority position, I actually think it's closer to 60-40 for the traumagenic, but if you think the language is too detailed or technical then by all means please improve it. I think a better option might be spin-off articles with summaries here though; a lot of the sections are very long and seem destined to get longer.

Fortunately, the new articles in 2012 represent a balance of iatrogenic and traumagenic positions, which means we have good, new sources to work with. My opinion is it would be best to expand here, and cut down/spin off later, and write the lead last. But no matter what, I don't think the version that was up three days ago was worth keeping. Far, far too much terrible formatting and belittling of the iatrogenic/sociocognitive position. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a separate article for the "MPD Controversy", what happened to that? As I've stated multiple times in the past, I think all of the theories about DID being a strictly iatrogenic disorder belong in a separate article and there are several reasons for this.

• It keeps the main article unpolluted by "DID doesn't exist" text (I've seen versions of the article where reading it felt like "DID exists. DID doesn't exist. DID exists. But you're an idiot if you believe DID exists. On yes it does exist.")
• The multiple issues surrounding the theory can be examined in detail and broken down in sections for a cleaner presentation. Details of "alleged traumagenic DID" (as this is the general view of "non-believers", if you will) can be left to the main article of DID. The details of "alleged iatrogenic DID" can be examined in the dissenting article, or perhaps an article dedicated solely to "iatrogenic DID."

Quite obviously, there are parallel lines of study on the topic of DID, one concerned with debunking it, the other concerned with improving the treatment of those afflicted. Thankfully, the debunkers are slowly loosing ground in this stupid debate (that should have never existed IMO). That doesn't mean that Wikipedia shouldn't examine the anti-DID movement! To the contrary, I think it should be well examined, but in an NPOV fashion. Daniel Santos (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

DreamGuy, re Sybil case & noteability, I agree on noteability, but only from a "DID in popular culture" standpoint. This case has almost no a scientific or clinical value and should not be used as any type of evaluation of the disorder! This is especially the case nearly half a centry later when psychology has marched ahead in understanding DID. Daniel Santos (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the MPD controversy page is it was merged into this page as a inappropriate content fork. Only one page exists per topic, splitting the page into two discussing "real" DID versus "fake" DID is inappropriate and any experienced editor will tell you the same if WP:CFORK is unconvincing to you. Per WP:NPOV, the iatrogenesis hypothesis absolutely belongs here and there is NO debate on this. A common argument from new accounts is to take the parts of articles they don't like and put them in separate pages. This is completely wrong and there is no discussion on the point. Per WP:STRUCTURE, the point-counterpoint on iatrogenesis/traumagenesis should occur where appropriate because each position has published commentary on nearly every point. A good article will discuss these debates, not hide them. The fact that published criticisms have questioned DID's very existence should be included. Though there is a good case to be made for longer sections to be summarized here and spun off into separate articles, what is left here should be a complete summary including the debate. The fact that you are arguing for a split means you do not understand WP:NPOV. This is utterly uncontroversial and if you doubt what I've said, I suggest you go to the NPOV noticeboard and ask there, where you will without doubt get the response that the main article should summarize both well-sourced positions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you push your perceived "POV-pushing" on me by insenuating that I'm trying to hide something. Basically, you've contradicted yourself saying that there's "good case to be made for longer sections to be summarized here and spun off into separate articles" but that what I'm proposing is an inappropriate content fork. I call bullshit. Further, I'm absolutely not convinced that we're dealilng with the exact same topic. I'm not saying that the iatrogenesis hypothesis does not belong here, I am saying it should NOT be the main focus of this article and it doesn't belong in every damn paragraph! I've read versions of this article where it read like "if DID really did exist (which it probably doesn't) it has these symptoms" and that's unacceptable crap. You keep aspects of the topic subjegated to their sections (or separate articles if need be) and you don't bleed them all over each other. (I'm a programmer and I just don't put up with crappy encapsulation).

I make the argument for a section in this article on the controversy, arguments and evidence counter to the traumagenesis model and have a link to a main article on the topic so that it may be explored in greater depth, not to "try to hide it", that's just bullshit. For instance, there has seemed to be a lot of interested in DID in popular culture or in media, but that doesn't belong in a medical article. I don't mind it being summarized with a link to a main article on it, but this article doesn't need an examination of every way the disorder is used as a trope in media. I am indeed arguing for multiple spin-offs, including a DID controversy. For instance, it may be valuable enough for a separate article on the histoy of DID. It can cover the history from a medical / psychological perspective, then treat it separately from the perspective of the perceptions of the public. That can be a lot of information and may not belong in one article. So having a separate article to examine flaws in the theory of DID existing may not be bad because it allows more in-depth exploration without bloating a single article out.

Summary: yes iatrogenesis should be examined in this article, no it should NOT be the main focus of it.

Finally, I do not support your reverts. Even with as many problems as Tyla's version has, it's better than this one. I support fixing Tyla's versions and working with her to improve her editor skills, not the usual "this is my article" crap that I've been seeing from you and a few other editors. Daniel Santos (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Summary style means there is a child article that discusses a topic at length, while the parent article includes a {{main}} link and a summary discussion with fewer details. A content fork means the partent article contains no summary of one aspect of the topic. Instead, that topic is found solely in the child article with a heading like "Controversies regarding..." Having a lengthy diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder article with a main article containing an accurate summary is appropriate. Having a main article that doesn't mention iatrogenesis at all is not.

I don't believe iatrogeneisis is the main focus. I believe the article appropriately shows, in the appropriate sections, that there is disagreement between those holding the traumagenic position versus the iatrogenic position. This disagreement is found in nearly every aspect of DID, and accordingly nearly every section should reflect it. It may not belong in every paragraph, but certainly it belongs in every section. I will again point to WP:STRUCTURE - a single section on the controversy is inappropriate, the controversy should appear whenever reliable sources can be found to verify that there is a disagreement. And that's nearly everywhere. The main aritcle very much should discuss the flaws in the theory of DID, eitehr wholly or in summary form. That goes both ways - if proponents of the traumagenic position say that the iatrogenic model is flawed, it should be included (for instance, when I included Ross' critique of Piper & Mersky). Note that I was the one to include it, I believe the first, because it is part of the debate.

Per WP:MEDMOS, a section on society and culture does belong on this page. The frequent appearance of DID in popular culture is part of that discussion.

I find it hard to take the opinions of new editors seriously when they advocate for hiving off criticisms into content forks and removing them from the parent page. This is a fundamental failure to appreciate our core content policies and what a neutral article is. Neutral does not mean "uncritical", neutral means "giving appropriate time and space to controversies that exist". The iatrogenesis hypothesis exists, and it's an enormous part of the scholarly debate regarding DID. Call bullshit all you want, NPOV and STRUCTURE require it to remain on the page in accordance with its prominence in reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

need to follow MoS

This article isn't following the WP:MoS. For example Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says that since most, if not all, of the lead is repeated in the article, usually there's no need for citations, except for quotes or very controversial statements. Now there are 24 citations (two are inline) in the lead. Also, the current lead is not a concise summary of the article as is required. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section)

• For this reason, it is usually better to write the lead last.

Also, MoS:section headings says the name of the article shouldn't be repeated in the section headings. Currently the name is repeated in the following section headings:

• DID's system set description proposed
• States of Dissociative Identity Disorder
• DID is Frequently Misdiagnosed
• Models of Dissociative Identity Disorder
• History of DID in the DSM

Also, the citations should follow WP:MEDRS. This article contains numerous citations to article that seem to be to be a primary source while only a secondary source is recommended except under unusual circumstances.

Also, why are there so many images of the brain? Has DID been associated specifically with these areas of the brain by reliable secondary sources, so that such images are diagnostic of DID? In my view, all these images of the brain are misleading, as I've seen no set of reliable secondary sources that say that DID can be diagnosed by brain imaging.

Also it is important to be familiar with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles MathewTownsend (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Also note the considerable number of sources cited by way of simple (and inaccurate) square bracketed numbers like [84]. Boysen 2011 for instance, is cited in the text as [90] but is currently 93. As I suggest above, a wholesale revert would be the best approach in my mind. Though tedious, I have no issue with Tylas' contributions over the past weeks being re-integrating if not problematic. I expect the selection of sources to ultimately be the most controversial point and produce the most resulting disagreements - in addition to primary sources, there are a considerable number of books that I would characterize as "blatantly partisan", meanwhile more even-handed review articles are not used as extensively. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• and poor sources: in the lead ISST-D is used to support the statement: "The ISST-D reports prevalence rates of .01 to 1% in the general population." The ISST-D actually says: "Dissociative Identity Disorder: Prevalence rates of .01 (Coons, 1984) to 1% in the general population. Studies have indicated a prevalence rate of .5 to 1.0% in psychiatric settings (Maldonado et al., 2002)." So, who are Coons 1984 and Maldonado et al., 2002? And what supports the figure of 1% in the general population? And the studies are 26 and 10 years old respectively. Not good enough! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Coons, P.M. (1984). The differential diagnosis of multiple personality: a comprehensive review. In B.G. Braun (Ed.), Symposium on Multiple Personality, Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 7, 51-68. Can't find (Maldonado et al., 2002). MathewTownsend (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation is itself a problematic publisher/source. It's, obviously, dedicated to the study of trauma and dissociation, making it the primary exponent of the truamagenic hypothesis (without question, the debate between the traumagenic and iatrogenic etiologies is the most important and overwhelming debate regarding DID, one which continues to this day). Basing the page solely or primarily on the ISSTD and its sources (Trauma and Dissociation is their in-house journal) would be quite non-neutral. Not that it can't be used, but I'm far more comfortable basing much of the page on articles published elsewhere, particularly when giving a broad overview of the field. One thing I'd really like is a source that discusses the ISSTD's role in the debate and as the primary exponent of trauma hypothesis, something to keep an eye out for. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I thought the "sample" I gave above shows that the ISSTD is irresponsibly using data to make points.

I'd support a revert to a passable version. But I wonder if such a thing can be accomplished on wikipedia. From what I've observed, persistent editors get their way. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That depends on the page and the editors. This page is normally very rarely edited. I substantially rewrote it something like five years ago and it didn't change much in that time (for instance, I was the then-inexperienced editor who added many of the primary sources nobody removed between then and this summer). It is only with the appearance of Tylas in the past six months or so that it has received a lot of activity. On pages with attentive, experienced editors who arrive at a consensus version and just maintain it from there, it's relatively easy to patrol against POV-pushing and other issues (for instance, you'll see that POV-pushers have little chance to add in their text on topics like homeopathy, acupuncture and the like). If this were a constantly-changing page with numerous experienced editors arguing over nuances of policy, I'd agree with you. This is the case of an inexperienced editor ignoring the comments of an experienced editor (me) but the situation now has more than just the two of us. With a clear consensus on a version the community at large agrees is acceptable, we should be good. If Tylas continues to push against an obvious consensus, a block or page ban would be an appropriate venue to explore. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

How about this for an outline for first part of the lead?:

Dissociative identity disorder (DID, also known as Multiple Personality Disorder in the ICD-10), as defined by the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manual (DSM), is a mental disorder characterized by at least two distinct and relatively enduring identities or dissociated personality states that alternate control of a person's behavior and are accompanied by memory impairment for important information that cannot be explained by ordinary forgetfulness. These symptoms cannot be accounted for by substance abuse, seizures or any other medical condition. Fantasy behavior in children is also not included in the diagnosis. The disorder can be disabling, adversely affects a person's family, work or school life. Estimates of the disorder in the United States range to less than 1% of the general population.

[need brief history of the diagnosis here] e.g. Interest in this cluster of symptoms rose in the 1970's, and increased after the publication of Sybil.

The diagnosis of Dissociative identity disorder is based on the patient's self-reported experiences, behavior reported by relatives or friends, and clinical evaluations. A structured clinical interview can also be used.

Typically individuals with the disorder are treated by psychotherapy and sometimes with medication.

The cause of Dissociative identity disorder is controversial. The diagnostic manual DSM does not speculation on cause. Some experts theorize that it is caused by trauma and pathological levels of stress during the earliest years of childhood, although others state that it is a form of Borderline personality disorder or other diagnoses and is not a diagnosis in itself.

_______________________________________________________________

• Most of the article seems irrelevant to me. It should be about the subject of the article, the diagnosis of Dissociative identity disorder, not a venue for personal arguments, social agendas etc. It is a medical article.

• Major sections should be something like:

1. Signs and symptoms

   Co-morbidity

2. Causes
3. Diagnosis

   Clinical assessment

   DSM and ICD criteria

   Differential diagnoses

4. Treatment
5. Prognosis
6. Epidemiology
7. History
8. Social implication

• What do you think? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That follows MEDMOS, so it's fine with me (no need to reinvent the wheel when we've already got guidance). I would put co-morbidity in either the diagnosis or prognosis sections rather than "signs and symptoms". In this case I would argue strongly that we should work on the body first (particularly since there are several recent review articles not yet integrated) and write the lead after. The body needs so much updating I think we should focus on that first and then work on the lead (normally very fast and easy after the body has been substantially updated). Have you seen this version? It's the last stable version plus substantive inclusions from Spiegel et al 2011 and Boysen, 2011, both recent, both broad overviews of the field, as well as Cardena & Gleaves, a traumagenic-friendly chapter that none the less discusses (and criticizes) the iatrogenic position rather than ignoring it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just saw your response. (why don't such things show up on my watchlist?) I agree with your comments 100%. Feel free to revert anything I do. I think the article is in such a trashy state right now that large steps are required. I'm shocked at what has been put in this article. The POV pushing! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you what to do, but in situations like this I normally don't bother editing since I'm pretty sure my edits will be erased in the revert. That's why I've been updating a personal subpage rather than this one. Feel free, by the way, to make and suggest improvements there if you prefer.

I'm still going to wait at least a day before reverting, to give any of the people monitoring this page but not WT:MED some time to notice and/or comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

ok, fine with me. I'm just pointing out what a muck things are in. If anything I do is reverted, that's ok. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Age of backlash

This section is POV. Such wording as "This resulted in a slew of litigation on the part of victims, accused abusers as well as therapists" is not appropriate for a medical article. The article must maintain a NPOV. Please fix all instances of POV pushing. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The revert will take care of that :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a Circus!

In the lead you have Sybil! One case does not make DID. Someone is showing an extreme POV by using Sybil! ~ty (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sybil probably shouldn't be in the lead, but all this seems pointless since a revert seems pretty inevitable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't care whether Sybil is in the lead, or not. There needs to be a summary of the history in the lead. And although there had been prior case histories etc., in the 1970's the interest rose dramatically. The publishing of Sybil may have been a result but it certainly raised the public consciousness of the condition. But I don't care if it is removed.

This article is on a DSM diagnosis though that has been driven by public advocacy, more so than other diagnosis e.g. Schizophrenia or Major depressive disorder. In this, it resembles Reactive attachment disorder and Attachment disorder. So perhaps some sentence, as in Reactive attachment disorder would be appropriate, (from RAD) "Mainstream treatment and prevention programs that target RAD and other problematic early attachment behaviors are based on attachment theory and concentrate on increasing the responsiveness and sensitivity of the caregiver, or if that is not possible, placing the child with a different caregiver. Most such strategies are in the process of being evaluated. Mainstream practitioners and theorists have presented significant criticism of the diagnosis and treatment of alleged reactive attachment disorder or attachment disorder within the complementary and alternative medicine field commonly known as attachment therapy." - something statement that recognizes the existence of both sides, using secondary reliable sources. I don't know enough about the recent history of DID to know what's going on and where these advocacy groups are coming from re DID. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed Sybil. At a glance the rest looks agreeable.~ty (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I'm in favor of a revert because to fix the article means essentially rewriting it from scratch. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The consensus at WT:MED is that the version is not agreeable, it's a mish-mash of poor formatting, failure to comply with the manual of style and an extremely one-sided, non-neutral discussion of DID in general. Tylas, the version may look agreeable to you but that doesn't mean it is properly written according to the standards of wikipedia. I've begun going through your edits to the page and will try to include those that improve the page (and give reasoning for any edits you think are inapproprately excluded). But you consistently fail to grasp many core areas of policy, formatting and in particular, neutrality. This is the message repeated on numerous pages. You should listen. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sybil absolutely should appear in the lead and be well represented in the article. It is the most famous example of someone diagnosed with this alleged condition. Tylas appears (as he/she did months back when making the same rejected arguments) to want it to be erased from the article entirely solely because it was quite conclusively demonstrated to be not a case of mental illness at all. We cannot just hide one of the most important pieces of information about this topic just because some people are embarrassed by it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking Nathan, all she showed in her book is her extreme POV. Her conclusion that Sybil has pernicious anemia instead of a dissociative disorder is laughable! Nathan is simply a journalist with an agenda. She is in no way an expert on DID.~ty (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, per Wikipedia policy, her book is a relilable source and she's clearly more of an expert on DID than you are. You personal opinion that her opinion should be disregarded. Sources can and do have POVs. We need to report on them in order to give an accurate summary of the topic. You wanting to exclude all mention of it because you think it's laughable is editing with a POV-based agenda. It's exactly behavior like that which demonstrates your basic inability to contribute in a way that follows our policies. DreamGuy (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

DreamGuy, I have to call your judgement here into question. You're taking a journalist's editorial as a 'conclusive demonstration'? Either way, I say hell no it doesn't belong in the lead. This is an article about a psychological condition, not popular media. As I said in another section of this talk page, Sybil is noteable for "DID in popular media" (there used to be a section in the article on that and even a separate article exploring "DID in popular media" further), and perhaps also noteable for the history of public understanding & awareness of DID, but that's it.

I believe, however, that many people who prefer to believe that DID doesn't exist like the Sybil phenomnea because it can make the person claiming to have DID appear crazy. Noteable? Yes. Primary (belonging in the lead)? No. Daniel Santos (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of reliable sources saying Nathan's work is incorrect, it is reasonable to give Nathan the last word. She doesn't have to be an expert at DID, but as a journalist with access to primary sources she is certainly reliable. Claiming all she showed in her book is POV is a personal opinion and therefore not reliable, but certainly OR.

This may be an article about a medical condition, but it still has a popular, and a sociocultural history (and given the Satanic Panic and the false memory debates, both linked strongly to DID, plus the unusual historical bubble of interest > research > bust, that history deserves a spot in the lead). Whether Sybil deserves a mention is debatable (The Three Faces of Eve was earlier, and arguably more famous, though Sybil and Sybil have been somewhat discredited which is notable) but it is not unreasonable to argue for inclusion. I would suggest, once a stable version exists, we have a formal request for comment on the matter. The point is to have a lead that adequately summarizes the body, not one that supports or refutes a particular point of view. My personal opinion is that Sybil does not belong in the lead, though a paragraph on the history does (the research bubble is far more noteworthy in my opinion). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hell, the claim that this is an article about a mental condition is itself POV, but hey. If Sybil herself is not mentioned in the lead, a more general brief summary that some of the most famous cases offered up by supporters of this diagnosis have been extensively questioned, and even the subjects themselves later said they faking the whole thing to please their therapists would be highly appropriate. DreamGuy (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The quote "perhaps also noteable [sic] for the history of public understanding & awareness of DID, but that's it". You say "that's it" like this undeniable fact that even the pro-DID crowd has to admit is true is somehow not hugely important and necessary for this topic. Diagnoses of MPD did not explode until after these famous cases were publicized. It drove the whole phenomenon. It was a fad diagnosis, and it's notable just how little factual basis those famous cases were based upon. Frankly, anyone at this point who argues that those cases are not well debunked are so far off the deep end in their own POV that they fail to see the obvious. But, regardless of my opinion, your opinion, WLU's opinion, or Ty's opinion, it has all been published in WP:RS-compliant sources per Wikipedia's policies and has more right to be in this article than any primary sources, like journals produced by a small group of hardcore dissociative therapists. DreamGuy (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In extremely controversial situations, direct quotes are often best. The reason I originally sourced to the DSM is because it's a pretty unimpeachable source, and I think it still works well. A general summary of the history in the lead is necessary, it's explored at length in the body but doesn't appear in the lead at all. I don't know if I'd mention specific cases, bar perhaps Eve as the first.

DG, do you know of any RS criticisms of the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation? It seems like it would be a likely target for the iatrogenesis crowd to jump on but I have yet to see any specific sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think most critics of DID don't bother to criticize journals produced by proponents of dissociation. Any time one of them says something like "Of course the theoretical construct we have dedicated our entire journal to is real! Everyone who isn't an idiot agrees!!" it really just deserves a shrug and a "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" as a reply. DreamGuy (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Question - Original VS Reviews

I know how references are done in the world of education and - such as for a thesis, but on WP they are confusing. I understand that WP, no matter how far off the mainstream thought a review article is, that is the highest source. No problem with that. What confuses me is why next to an image is now calls for the original research instead of something new. ~ty (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not how references are "done" on wikipedia that's different from the academic world. It's the type of information an editor can use. In academics, original research is allowed. e.g. in completing a thesis or dissertation a student is engaging in original research, as are researchers who publish their experimental findings.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; therefore only reliable secondary sources are allowed (such as journal review articles that evaluate the work of others and draw conclusions based on examining all relevant studies of the subject), often using statistical analyses to do so.

When a series of brain images appear in an article on a diagnosis, the implication is that the diagnosis involves a brain disorder. The image of the brain with the {{or}} tag was sourced to a book on PTSD, not DID. Since there is no sourced information in the article that DID and PTSD have the same brain abnormalities, implying that they do is original research.

Have you read verifiability and reliable sources? That might clarify things for you, as well as the policies and guidelines on writing medical articles. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You do understand almost everyone with DID also has PTSD right? Are you talking about Rothchild's book. I love that one! The book is filled with information about DID. It's one of the first I read, trying to see what my pseudoseizures were. The parts highlighted in the brain image are affected by both PTSD and DID. They were relevant. ~ty (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think what MathewTownsend is saying here is that the brain images can be misleading for persons new to the topic as it can imply that the disorder is a neurological (i.e., organic) disorder that can be diagnosed by brain imaging, which to my knowledge, is not the case. I had some text back in 2007 of some cool studies, but it was obviously removed since it demonstrated science counter to someone's POV. Here's the snippet (revision here):

One EEG study comparing DID with hysteria showed differences between the two diagnoses. A postulated link between epilepsy and DID has been disputed by a number of authors. Some brain imaging studies have shown differing cerebral blood flow with different alters. A different imaging study showed that findings of smaller hippocampal volumes in patients with a history of exposure to traumatic stress and an accompanying stress-related psychiatric disorder were also demonstrated in DID. This study also found smaller amygdala volumes. Studies have demonstrated various changes in visual parameters between alters. One twin study showed hereditable factors were present in DID.

So while the function amygdala is very much associated with PTSD (and thus, DID) and should be examined in this article, a link to the main article on the amygdala is probabl better than brain images. However, I support the removal of the over-dramatic "Dr. Jekel & Mr. Hide", as IMO, it seems to detract from the subject by presenting more "look how crazy this idea is" types of characterization of the disorder.

So WLU, now that I've posted some reliable info are you going to now "excise" it as "tangential" as you seem feel justified in doing in talk pages? Daniel Santos (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I could not agree more with removing that Jekyll and Hyde picture. I have tried in the past, but WLU would revert it. He did compromise at least by making the tag less controversial. That sort of thing belong in popular culture, not a medical article on DID. I also cannot agree more than the extreme POV expressed by WLU does not belong so entwined on a medical page about DID. A paragraph about controversy, such as I had, but not throughout the article. This have been the argument that many bring here, and WLU get's rid of these people.~ty (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Daniel, based on WP:PSTS and Wikipedia:MEDRS#Respect_secondary_sources, how many of the sources in that reflist are primary, and how should they be handled? Not according to your opinion, but according to the policies and guidelines?

Both of you, on a page with very few images, why is it inappropriate to include, in a section on popular culture, a picture of what is generally seen to be the first, and quite iconic example of the fictional portrayal of DID, particularly given a source that verifies these points?

DID has had an enormous impact on society and culture, spawning numerous books, comics, movies, TV shows, popular discussions, manga, theses, plays and more. It's an extremely compelling idea with a huge impact on popular culture. Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes includes "society and culture" as an appropriate heading for disorders. Though this is a medical article, it does not cover solely medical topics.

Both of you again, do debates about iatrogenesis versus traumagenesis occur solely in the etiology of DID, or do the debates have an impact on diagnosis, research, history, treatment, epidemiology and symptoms? And based on WP:STRUCTURE, do you think it is appropriate to have a single section discussing the iatrogenesis/traumagenesis debate? I am asking based on WP:STRUCTURE, not based on your personal opinions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

3 Reverts by WLU

Is this not a no no? This gives no choice but to use a version that WLU has been working on in his sandbox. The words I used above - oh, so slowly, were taken out of context. I did the changes one at a time on this page. WLU has worked on his own version then just put in in the place of the working version. I hope this is something that is not just allowed to happen on WP. ~ty (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:3RR. As I've mentioned above, the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Dissociative Identity Disorder was that a wholesale revert was recommended. I will review your changes one-by-one and include any that are appropriate. You must realize that it's not my idiosyncratic preference that dictates my reverts - I make a point of consistently discussing why, with reference to policies and guidelines, I am making the changes and reverts I do. A reply that "I simply don't understand DID" is not sufficient, is unconvincing, and doesn't address any of the P&G issues I raise. Please spend time becoming familiar with the P&G I link to and reference rather than assuming your version is better. The P&G should be the common starting point for everyone's work here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The problems with this are the usual things you have done on this page WLU.

1. You have now taken total control again. Before this last round of edits which you entirely reverted, I was not allowed even one edit to remain. You did the same with TomCloyd. He was a content expert and knew WP well, yet you still would not allow him to make one edit! (if one or two were allowed, I am sorry, but I think you did full reverts of anything either of us tried to do.) Notice, even a small edit like removing the symptom paranoia resulted in a revert war. You would not allow me even one edit of something that was flat out wrong.

2. You then let FF edit, as long as you could control (micromanaged) her edits. I announced I will not be controlled (micomanaged) by you, and that statement was taken out of context and used on the med page.

3. You cried victim when I started to edit. You cried victim when TomCloyd tried to edit, claiming - again out of context that he called you a psychopath. He said you exhibited psychopathic behavior, which you do. Yet you twisted that to say he was calling you names on the playground and he got banned by the same folks that seem to show up in your favor when you have conflict.

4. Most of those who said anything on the med page are the same that came to your aid to ban TomCloyd. I would think this sort of thing needs to be brought in front of an unbiased crowd instead of you calling forth your buddies to vote your way.

5. Even now you say YOU will put back in my edits that YOU deem good and as soon as I started to edit today - you reverted the whole thing to a version you were working on in your sandbox. What makes you sole judge? Why can't I and other editors also work on the article? I know many how have tried to edit this page have that same complaint.

6. This article remains a B article and you allow little to no change to it. My goal was/is an A article. Yet, again you stop this process from going forth.~ty (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want this page to fall back into pointless bickering, keep bringing up stuff like this. If you want to actually move forward with a stable version, please start referencing policies and guidelines. Without a common understanding of the P&G, the page will continue to be subject to fruitless edit wars. Rather than say I want to control you (which I don't, I just don't want your sloppy and inappropriate edits to worsen the page again) why not pick an edit and indicate why you think it should be redone, and listen to my reply. If I say an edit is inappropriate, I'm not just making that statement in a void. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You know very well that both TomCloyd and I (and I am willing to bet many others) have played this game with you already. As I keep repeating, you do not allow me to edit the page - period! Even one edit of mine (or almosts anyone's) get reverted by you. How was removing the word paranoia from the symptoms list a sloppy and inappropriate edit that worsened the page? Heck, even Dreamguy complains about this with you! Having paranoia in the symtoms list and then defending it by saying something like - if it's there then it's right - shows you do not even know the basic symptoms of DID. Instead from my reading through the literature it seems that often all you did was copy and paste and throw a reference at the end a statement and call this your good writing. You twist and use whatever you can from your knowledge of WP to get your way - your extreme POV. I don't want to bicker and I have nothing personal against you, but you and I both know that the second I make an edit you will revert it as you again showed this morning. This is what you have done since the first day I ever tried to work on this page.~ty (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I do know that when I give detailed rationales I get pretty much the same thing back - I don't understand DID, I am wrong, just copying and pasting sources isn't enough. You don't grasp that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. What you call "twisting my knowledge of wikipedia to get my way" I consider simply following the policies and guidelines. Can you point out where my interpretations of the P&G are wrong? Particularly given the number of people who have stated the old version of the page was much, much worse than the current version?

Removing paranoia because you don't think it's a symptom is inappropriate. Removing it because it was sourced to a primary study is appropriate. There's a difference. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll also note that, based on your edit summary of "change of mind on 6 after reading on his talk page he is pro iatrogenic", your assessment of whether another editor is "unbiased and knowledgeable" appears to be based on whether they agree with the traumagenic or iatrogenic position [3]. That's flat-out wrong, and shows your failure to understand WP:NPOV. There is no "right" answer on wikipedia, there are only answers that can be verified. Editors are good or bad based on their ability to understand policies and guidelines - not whether you agree with them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(I'd be surprised if reliable sources agreed that paranoia is part of the symptom cluster of DID.)

Tylas, what do you think should be in the article that isn't? This article is on a medical diagnosis, just as Reactive attachment disorder and Major depressive disorder are. Both are featured articles, which means they are among the best that wikipedia has to offer. Reactive attachment disorder is somewhat like DID in that it's diagnosis and treatment are controversial. You can read that article to see how a controversial medical diagnosis is treated in a neutral, unbiased way. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. My point is that paranoia is not a symptom of DID. WLU insisted paranoia is. I will work on the other as time allows, but I do know what a NPOV is. WLU pretends to have one to get his way, this does not mean it is a NPOV - it means he is excellent at manipulation and working WP guidelines in his favor.~ty (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WLU, this is what the rules are suppose to be! The problem is that we both know the truth. You watch over the DID article and do not let hardly anyone edit. If they are allowed, they must be directed by you.~ty (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think paranoia is a symptom of DID? Are you sure? Because I find that assertion rather surprising.

Tylas, what does NPOV mean? Can you explain the policy succinctly? How do you know if a page is neutral? How do you account for the fact that several people have said the version you were working on was inappropriate? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Those people saying this are mostly the same people that come to WLU's rescue. I would have to have you read what Daniel Santos wrote on this page a few days ago. This is a completely Neutral and unbiased POV. I made the changes he suggested. Other than that, I would direct you to WP NPOV rules, but I am sure you know where they are.~ty (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

PS - paranoia (such as in Schitzophrenia) is not the same as paranoia-like such as in DID. It is not paranoia.~ty (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, you haven't answered my question. What do you think should be in the article that isn't? Do you think both sides of a controversy should be presented in proportion to their presence in reliable sources? Or do you think this article should support a particular side, even if it's controversial? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Here lies the problem! What WLU digs up is not presented in proportion in reliable sources. What I had was. No, the article should not support one side if it is controversial. The problem with giving iatrogenic and the trauma model equal weight is that WP would be the only place that does that. They are not considered equal in any research or book that I have ever read - of course that means up to date literature, not old historic stuff. I did answer, but the above is more direct, the below is what I was talking about. By the way - how did you get called into court to testify? By the way - you do seem nice. :) ~ty (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, the problem is that DID does not receive much support in the current professional literature, e.g. the reliable sources appropriate to this article. The best sources are generally review articles, that is articles that review the recent literature (usually within the last three to five years) and analyze the results, usually using statistical analyses to reduce subjective evaluations. So to present the current state of the DID diagnosis, there is lessening support for it as more problems in reliability and validity crop up. In general, it is supported by a few professionals who have made it their life career, but does not have wide support in the literature. In the court system, which is very pragmatic, judges and juries in general do not "buy" the diagnosis. It seems to be supported by some advocacy organizations but not by the medical/psychological field in general. Frankly, I think the current article gives more than enough consideration that it could be a valid diagnosis. (This is in contrast to PTSD which is receiving increasing recognition.) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew - Yeah, I don't like the idea of anyone using DID and going to court with it - DID is not about finding out if memory is correct, it's about breaking down the dissociated states that were created as a child. There I agree with you. PTSD gets a ton of work because of the government and war vets. In 2012 things have changed a lot and there has been a vast amount of research in the area of dissociative disorders including DID - the vast majority concluding that DID is traumatic in origin. That means current review articles. There are very few researchers out there that don't believe in the traumatic etiology of DID - however at the same time iatrogenic methods due to poor therapeutic practice used in the past is also recognized - but let's hope no one uses those methods anymore, and if so, it would not be many. Any ethical therapist knows not to use them. This however only explains dissociated states that are created in adults that are temporary and do not persist. This does not explain the whole of DID. But it not my opinion that counts - it's the what the research has unearthed and presented that does and that is that the traumatic model is what most researchers agree is the real deal. See this article: Check out this 2012 Article Here is another 2012 article that explains current life as far as DID goes well: Where Are We Going? An Update on Assessment, Treatment, and Neurobiological Research in Dissociative Disorders as We Move Toward the DSM-5 Where Are We Going? An Update on Assessment, Treatment, and Neurobiological Research in Dissociative Disorders as We Move Toward the DSM-5 This one is good too but it's only 2011: Dissociative disorders in DSM-5 This one is 2012 - Kluft reviews the roles hypnotically facilitated techniques might play will be reviewed, and the application of several of these techniques in the treatment of a DID.~ty (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the difference between "the same people that come to WLU's rescue" and "an independent opinion from experienced editors"? You can't define "anybody who agrees with WLU" as a priori too biased to comment, that's more an indication that you refuse to acknowledge I might have a point, ever.

Also, "What WLU digs up is not presented in proportion in reliable sources" is pretty much wrong. If I can keep finding sources, per WP:NPOV I am adequately reporting a minority opinion at best. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The same people coming to aid you are not an unbiased selection of editors. You can dig up all you want, but the problem again is, that you ignore the mainstream ideas of the majority of researchers in DID for those few that are in the minority. Again, both sides should be presented but they are not equally weighted. ~ty (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"The same people coming to aid you are not an unbiased selection of editors" - Why not? Are you saying I "dug up" other editors? You posted a message on editor assistance that resulted in AndytheGrump shooting you down. Skinwalker, without any input on my part, started a section in which a half-dozen editors saying the article was problematic. You were the second person to post a note. Anthonyhcole posted a note on my talk page suggesting the DID page was problematic, independently and without any request from me. Or are they biased simply because they disagree with you? It's very, very hard to stay calm when consistently people say you are wrong, and your response is to call me mean and them biased. When this many people say the problem is you, perhaps the problem is you.

As for weighting, how do we determine weight? Review WP:WEIGHT and let me know what the policy, not you, says we should do. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Round and round and round we go. This has been answered.~ty (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you please do so again for my final question. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I like this new lead, but it still has some issues that need to be ironed out. You give a description of clinical dissociation that isn't consistent with the main article. Your description includes "body numbness or impairments" which I did not see in the main article. I guess the main article needs to be updated to include information about the characteristics of clinical dissociation (i.e., when it is pathology). However, this sentence is attempting to describe dissociation in the context of DID, where these symptoms are quite applicable. Still, I think this can be worded better.Daniel Santos (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Good suggestion. Thank you ~ty (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The final sentence in the opening paragraph "but if trauma occurs then the result is clinical dissociation" should probably be more clear that it's talking about early childhood trauma (maybe?). I know that's the topic of the previous sentence, maybe somebody else can toss in an opinion about that. (As an aside, most of the older literature described this phenomena as a case of very young children not having yet developed more sophisticated coping skills and are forced to resort to dissociation when sever stress occurs. I'm behind on the literature on this particular issue.) Daniel Santos (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Good suggestion. That would take a lot of explaining that might be best done on the wp dissociation page. Thank you ~ty (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Believe it nor not, there are actually articles published as recently as 2011 (that I am aware of) that call into question the existence of DID its self! So the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph is not correct to my knowledge. However, the lead is not the place to explore the controversy in depth and is treated far too much here. The bulk of this should be moved to the controversy section. I think that what's important for the lead is that we present the basic information: what DID is (which I think the first paragraph does fairly well), a little about the controversy and some well-sourced statistics should be enough. Daniel Santos (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. Done.~ty (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Epidemiology

I was working on this section and adding the references required when WLU reverted to the version he keeps in his sandbox.~ty (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You are free to make changes to the current version to a certain extent. May I suggest instead discussing them here first. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ty, again, let me remind you: Any edits which you know to be controversial cannot be made to the article without first getting consensus of editors on the talk page. Considering your history here it would be safest to assume any change you think should be made to the article will be controversial, so you should never be making any changes to the article without discussion first and explicit agreement from multiple parties that it's OK to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support talk first. Ty - Given the lack of general consensus with the changes you have been making, and to avoid a WP:BATTLEGROUND, there's a need for you to find consensus for your proposed changes (apart from obviously uncontroversial minor fixes) on the Talk page. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem Mistymorn is that you have not tried to work on this article. I did and WLU will keep one tied up on this talk page, then attempt to ban them - in the process nothing is ever done on the article. I have already been there and done that with that man and as it stands I have never been allowed to keep even one edit to the DID article. If I was just joining I would have the same advice, but as you can see from the frustration expressed here, WLU sits over this thing like Lord and God and no one can touch it without his approval. This process, on this article, with WLU involved will result in the article being nothing but his own POV. ~ty (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There were 2 other editors here working and discussing. You mean I cannot make any changes unless you and WLU okay them. Correct? ~ty (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It really depends on the actual edit, but it may be that most of yours end up in a bold-revert-discuss cycle. If you continue to edit war, there's a chance you could be blocked (though since the 3RR hasn't been violated, not a very big one, it would be an unusual action from an admin) but the page could be locked. I will again point out that I don't think anyone thought "your" version was an improvement.

The other editor currently "working with" you was Daniel Santos, who sits at less than 500 edits total. I wouldn't suggest going to him for advice on the manual of style, policy or weight. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That is just rude WLU. The number of edits does not make one a good editor. In fact, it might make him the unbiased type of editor that we need on this site. One that is not entrenched in WP politics and the buddy system.~ty (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If deciding to make a comment, please focus on the point in the message you are replying to, and respond to that. This page is not the place to offer an opinion on whether a comment was rude, or what makes a good editor. WLU offered an opinion that someone with less than 500 edits is unlikely to be in a position of offer advice on style, policy or weight—that is just a statement of the obvious, and is providing good advice, namely that it would be unwise to rely on an inexperienced editor for opinions on certain rather esoteric features of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Johnuiq - it seems that old time WP editors have pride in the number count, but that really is not perfect criteria to separate a good editor from one that is not.~ty (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That is absolutely true, and new editors can make fantastic contributions that adhere closely to the MOS. But generally they do not, and when Daniel makes comments along the lines of "criticisms should be moved out of the article" or "criticisms should be put into a single section", for an experienced editor that's a clear sign that he does not apprecate WP:CFORK and WP:STRUCTURE. The only way to read either of those pages is to realize criticisms must be included where appropriate and should not be ghettoized to a separate section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, perhaps you could start by making little, uncontroversial edits, such as proofreading, or adding a sentence cited to a recent review article (within the last three to five years), preferably not a book as books take a while to write and a while to publish (thus tending to be more out-of-date than the publication date indicates) and often tend to represent the author's POV. Also, rather than concentrating on the personalities or behaviors of editors, you could discuss article issues on this page (which is what this page is for). I've asked you questions about content on this page that you've not answered. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, I really recommend you take you be "adopted" by Worm That Turned. He has a very good course (I took it) that teaches you the basics of editing on wikipedia. I think that if you went to any fairly well-developed article on wikipedia and edited it as much as you have this one, without discussing your edits on the talk page, you would get a similar reaction as you are getting here. Go to Worm That Turned and get some advice. He's very nice and helpful and has no interest in the content of this article, so his opinions/advice would be neutral. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the questions. They are lost in all this talk. As for books they are very important and I can photograph information needed for those who do not have the references, but to be up on DID - one should read the most current books on the subject - I think. Neutral would be so nice, but you know women are a little turned off by - ewwww - worms - right? I will contact him, but again my issue is having correct information on the DID page. Not becoming a FT WP editor. I understand that this is the goal of many here, but it is not my goal.~ty (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, books are not as good as journal review articles for the reasons I mentioned above. I advise you to stick to reliable secondary sources, which for this article is mostly journal review articles in reliable journals. MathewTownsend (talk)

Oh yes! I agree Mathew, but books are still important and should not be ignored I think. Review articles are what we all look for of course, but there are limits to those, and there is a lot of information out there. 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes books need not be ignored. But they are not generally peer-reviewed. A well-known figure in the field can get his book published by a reputable publisher, no matter how POV his views are. Journal articles have more "eyes" for pre-publishing review, are published faster and tend to be more up-to-date. In a book the author rarely reveals data to support his opinions. Books are good for past history. Some text books (e.g. undergraduate text books) are good sources for well accepted but technical information, as a book may word concepts more clearly so the layman understands. MathewTownsend (talk)

This is also my interpretation of books versus review articles - articles are newer, receive a more rigorous peer review and have less latitude in presenting one-sided depictions of topics, all good things per WP:RS and NPOV. Books are not excluded but I would hesitate to use them for the latest summaries, the best depiction of the current state of affairs and for blanket or absolute statements on a topic. My preference would be to use review articles for general statements while books would be better for more detailed discussions of specific points. Individual cases should be resolved either here or at the WP:RSN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's my view too (as I already stated elsewhere). Btw, not having edited an article doesn't preclude helping out on its Talk page. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from MathewTownsend

Just a couple. I've been making minor edits to the article, based on uncontroversial points I believe. One problem is that there is a difference between how US and Brits handle mental health issues. I'm not sure what the POV of this article regarding that is.

Also, I think long strings of citations in the lede reduces the credibility of the article and isn't encouraged by WP:LEAD. I looked at the citations and many of them didn't support the statement clearly anyway. Why not move them down to the body of the article where the issues are discussed.

And WebMD is not considered a reliable source for medical/psychological articles. But I'm amazed at the lack of info about DID these days. I recently completed 40 hours of continuing credits to renew my license, and not one of the hundreds of course offerings had anything to do with DID. In the US, it seems to have faded from the scenery. Am I wrong? No mailings I receive for many course and inservice offerings ever are about DID. Am I just out of the loop? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BIAS, we shouldn't favour one perspective or the other. If a source states that the US handles these things differently from the UK, that would be an interesting and valuable conclusion. For spelling and the like, we would refer to WP:ENGVAR, but I'm not sure which spelling to use.

As for the lead, citations in the lead are optional, and whether they are used in the lead depends on the local page consensus. However, WP:LEAD does suggest that controversial subjects may be better with citations and I think this will be one of those cases. I think the lead could do with a rewrite and expansion, but I also think it would be best to improve the body first.

I had never seen WebMD as failing MEDRS, but since the two current uses are fairly uncontroversial statements, it should be easy to replace them with a better source.

Boysen has an article in press that reviews the DID literature on adults (there is a published article on children already used). Until the new article is published, it obviously can't be used (Boysen supplied me with a reprint when I asked for a copy of the one on kids, but I won't be able to pass it along since I told him I would reserve it for personal use) but he did a fairly broad review of DID and came to several conclusions - the bubble has indeed passed, interest has died down but publications continue at a lower level, and the central issues still have not yet been resolved. Once it is published I think it'll be an excellent addition to the article and present a balanced perspective on both sides; hopefully some time in 2012. So I would say you are correct that interest in DID is indeed less prevalent; iatrogenesis proponents will say it is because there are fewer inappropriate therapeutic techniques, traumagenic may agree but will also add it is because DID is not widely recognized and is still underdiagnosed.

Personal question, are you a psychologist, or a psychiatrist (or neither)? Apparently psychiatrists tend to be more skeptical of the diagnosis (Paul McHugh's Try To Remember goes into this) so it may be the impact of your professional circles. A personal observation is that many of the skeptical articles tend to be published in journals with "Psychiatry" in the title, but perhaps that is confirmation bias talking. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dang it, I had a witty quip as a response to MT's question and you had to get a serious, well-thought out answer in there as an edit conflict before I could pop it in there. Now the moment is lost. Probably for the best, however. DreamGuy (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

replies to WLU.

• That's what I'm asking. What variant of English does this article use?
• Re citations in the lead: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." But six for part of one sentence? And with two more in the same sentence?
• Re DID. Yes the bubble has burst and DID has fallen to the floor, the purview of a few dedicated researchers. In the US, few clinical psychiatrists engage in psychotherapy; mostly they write prescriptions after diagnosing and they don't want to get into the morass of paperwork justifying a DID diagnosis to an insurance company to get reimbursement (they mostly wouldn't get it). Better to diagnose Anxiety disorder, Depressive disorder, Borderline personality disorder or the like. If they do psychotherapy, in the unlikely event that DID is approved (after a 10 page justification), authorization will be for three to five sessions. Then another justification must be presented, documenting some improvement but making a case that more therapy is needed to get authorization for another three to five sessions. One can get very good at documenting incremental improvement, while justifying why more treatment is needed, and some make a living that way for some disorders, but not many choose that route for DID as the insurance company is adverse to paying for endless treatment not shown to be effective. It's the same for clinical psychologists who have prescription privileges or engage in psychotherapy and depend on insurance reimbursements. Clinical social workers can diagnose and treat but again the insurance reimbursement is a show stopper for DID diagnoses. There are various psychotherapists, therapists etc. with a variety of licenses, some of whom engage in therapies based on attachment therapy, Attachment-based psychotherapy, etc. and therapies based on Colin Ross's view of DID who have patients willing and able to pay for the extensive and frequent sessions such treatment entails, thus bypassing the "system" of third-party payers which most of the US depends on. But they are lower down on the totem pole; only psychiatrists and psychologists testify about diagnoses in court. And the US legal system is not a believer in DID. Colin Ross is Canadian and I have no idea who diagnoses or what happens in Canada, whether the legal system accepts the diagnosis etc. Same for Britain. I'm unclear who does what there. Do you know? Is Boysen Canadian or what? How does the British court system regard DID? MathewTownsend (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Clinical psychologists are more skeptical of the diagnosis, I think, as they are trained in the scientist–practitioner model, and rely more on statistical analyses and the experimental method. Psychiatrists were basically psychoanalytic. And that's the model the American Psychiatric Association used in its first manual. Now the DSM is caught between a rock and a hard place as demands for empirical validation are escalating. (You're right about WebMD, according to MEDRS. I'm surprised, as their article on DID is poor). MathewTownsend (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what is used, as long as it's consistent. In cases where there is no pressing reason to adopt one or the other, whatever was used first is maintained. Frankly, we could flip a coin and it wouldn't matter to me - feel free to standardize as you see fit.

Ya, the citations may be excessive, feel free to trim down. In cases like this what can often happen is someone challenges a point of contention, someone else (i.e. me) spams the crap out of that point with a bunch of references to illustrate that yes, it is indeed a genuine point of contention. Basically if there is consensus that a point should remain in the lead, the citations aren't as necessary (and not in that much volume).

Actually, part of the problem with DID is that it was very, very lucrative for insurance reimbursements (i.e. for hospitals and practitioners), then the opinion turned and people started suing clinicians for exacerbating their symptoms. Clinicians insurers stopped insuring and the money dried up. Again I recommend McHugh's book. Boysen is American, Piper and Merskey are both Canadian, and I'm not aware of Britain vs. the US except through the most tenuous connections via the satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory debates - all of which link together in various hydrean ways. I do know that Britain has a publicly-funded system, the NHS, but searching their website turned up nothing for MPD or DID. That might be another place to start looking for information actually - national health services for the US, UK, Canada and Australia. Unfortunately I can't answer any of the rest of your questions, but it would probably be worth researching. I haven't turned up much country-specific information in my research, most of it seems to apply generally without a lot of regional differences.

Part of the general problem with DID is a lack of research, that huge bubble, and the horrible, horrible taste it left in people's mouths, and still does probably.

Ross actually lives in Texas now :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Jargon and POV in lead

Here are some problem statements from the lead of the article:

• "The etiology of DID is controversial."

No. The diagnosis of DID is controversial. The etiology of the reported symptoms associated with the diagnosis of DID is controversial. The existence of multiple personalities as an actual psychological condition is controversial. Saying the etiology of DID is controversial is like saying the biology of Bigfoot is controversial. It's using the article's voice to outright declare that the POV stance that the alleged mental condition/legendary big hairy beast is real is the correct one.

Furthermore there are a ton of sentences throughout the article that use wording in such a way as to take the POV stance that DID is undeniably real, and that's not what Wikipedia is here for.

• "an alternative explanation is that dissociated identities are the iatrogenic effect of certain psychotherapeutic practices and increased focus from the media."

First off, that's again a violation of the WP:NPOV policy in that it assumes that dissociated identities are real and undeniable. Some critics may take that stance, but (many) others take the stance that dissociated identities are a completely false construct. Second, the vast majority of our readers have no idea on earth what iatrogenic means. The wording seems especially chosen to be confusing, and, when you follow the link, the Wikipedia section talking about it is also unclear, with the all-important phrase "including diagnosis with a false condition" being offset in parentheses. That single clause listed there as an aside is what we are talking about in this case: critics say it is not a real condition at all.

There needs to be much more clear description here. Something like "false condition" "playing make believe" or "shared delusion" would be more easy to follow. Folie imposée is a more specific description and would provide a good link to an article with more info that the current one on iatrogenesis, but of course it's also a jargon word most people would not understand immediately.

• "Individuals diagnosed with DID frequently report severe physical and sexual abuse as a child."

Having this statement on its own with no qualifiers is highly misleading. It is true that they do frequently report such things, but it is also extremely important to note that these reports are often not independently confirmed and, in fact, sometimes proven to be false.

It is noteworthy that anyone who bothers to dig down to the meat of the article will find text that more accurately portrays the controversy. For example, the Iatrogenesis subsection does mention the idea that the condition is not real, that it is strongly linked to therpists and therapies that generate false memories, and that the patients are thought to be engaged in mere role-playing. This is a case of the lead not adequately summarizing the actual content of the article.

Changing the lead to say what the rest of the article actually says would fix most of these problems. Only the (huge) problem of the majority of the article being worded in such a way to suggest dissociated personalities are totally real and undisputed would need to be fixed, and that problem is extremely widespread. DreamGuy (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As my suggested changes only brought the lead more in line with what the rest of the article already said, I went ahead and made them. DreamGuy (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Folie imposée involves two psychotic people. Those diagnosed with DID are not psychotic. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The DSM appropriated the phrase for a specific condition, as it did with many other common terms, but it has a wider meaning than just what the DSM covers. Just because someone is depressed/anxious/narcissistic doesn't mean they suffer clinical depression/anxiety disorders/narcissistic personality disorder. I can, however, see how you could be confused by some poor wording on that article if you weren't familiar with the topic. Most people diagnosed with DID are not psychotic, but many experts argue that they (and their therapists) are delusional to varying degrees, some clinically and some not; studies have shown a high correlation between DID and being prone to fantasy. Thanks for pointing out something that needs to be improved in another article, by the way. I'll add that to my to do list. DreamGuy (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Iatrogenic/sociocognitive treatment sources

I'm looking explicitly for iatrogenic/sociocognitive sources that discuss treatment, since right now the treatment section primarily adopts an explicitly and exclusively traumagenic position. Here's what I've got so far, but more would be useful:

• The elephant on the couch
• DID - challenging conventional wisdom

I've requested reprints from the authors, but right now what I need is more links. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That second article looks like it hits the nail on the head, but $35 for one day's use? (The first might, but I can't see anything but the title.) I'm trying to find links, but PMID, for example, has nothing. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you to google it to find an illegal copy, because I would never encourage copyright violation.

I've requested both from the editors, which usually gets me a PDF. Can't share it though, sorry - that's part of my promise when I request them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of a primary source

Though I am normally death on primary sources, I wonder about the following being used:

• Ost, J.; Wright, D. B.; Easton, S.; Hope, L.; French, C. C. (2011). "Recovered memories, satanic abuse, Dissociative Identity Disorder and false memories in the UK: A survey of Clinical Psychologists and Hypnotherapists". Psychology, Crime & Law: 1. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.598157.

MEDRS does permit judicious use of primary sources for statements of fact, and I think there might be merit in including a brief (2 sentences MAX!) summary of this. I'll have to read it in more detail, but the final paragraph in the conclusion pretty much sums it up:

“ In conclusion, the results of this survey indicate that, despite the extensive literature that has developed in the last 20 years, a number of psychological therapists hold beliefs that many memory scientists would view as controversial - in short, beliefs about memory which fail to be supported by scientific data. The reasons for this are not clear. It may be that the controversy surrounding these issues has died down in recent years and, as a result, some aspects are no longer as prominent in the psychological literature as they once were. Whatever the reason, the current results highlight the need for continued efforts to promote and publicize the relevant psychological science as widely as possible. ”

The reason I think there is merit in its use is because there is a dearth of sources on this particular topic - what therapists currently believe about the DID/SRA/FMS issues. We don't have any secondary sources to draw upon for this topic.

Even if it is not used, if anyone can get their hands on it the literature review from the beginning is quite interesting, a summary of the situation that is oddly complete (oddly because I've never seen such a combination of short yet comprehensive). Its reference list is also interesting, and could probably be mined for sources quite fruitfully. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think of the conclusion. The people I knew who were involved in treatment of DID were not the types that bothered about what the empirical literature said (social workers and other assorted therapists). Reading books like Ross and certain other books written by lesser beings about attachment, ego states etc., influenced their thinking and also they had their "group think". (I belonged for a short while to a group that met regularly over DID/Borderline treatment issues - so they reinforced each other in using treatment methods.)

I don't know of any psychologists or psychiatrists in my geographical location that treat DID per se. I read up on the UK today, and there it seems similar to the US. Very hard to get reimbursement for treating cases diagnosed as DID (or any diagnosis that requires extensive long-term treatment). The article said that to even have a chance to get NHS payment you had to "know" some influential person, although it varied by where the person lived. The upshot was that very little DID treatment was available.

Dealing with these cases is very compelling and these therapists seemed to easily get sucked in. (I remember how startled I was when an "alter" popped out for the first time in a diagnostic interview and jumped up on a table like a little kid!) Also, there are people who are willing to pay out of their own (or someone else's) pocket for treatment. So (maybe this sounds crazy), but maybe there's a subset of therapists that simply don't deal with establishment beliefs, and go their own way in treating these patients. They don't care what the scientific literature says about memory. Of course, there's no empirical evidence for this. But I do think there is a real "splitting" (pardon the pun) between what researchers are interested in and what therapists do with patients that present with these symptoms. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Iatrogenesis as a section title

Regards this edit, I actually prefer either "iatrogenesis" or "Sociocognitive model" (SCM) as a title versus therapist induced (and inclusion of the wikilink). Iatrogenic is an accurate word, and the term used by a large number of sources making it easier to look for sources, look for information in sources and generally is the best option in my opinion. Though there are subtle nuances between iatrogenesis and the SCM, I would still prefer the former as it has a longer history and SCM doesn't seem to have caught on everywhere quite yet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I changed it because of a complaint that it was "jargon". I'm perfectly willing to use Iatrogenic for the parts of the disorder that some think it applies. But I think it's simplistic to lay this out as a dichotomy between the two positions. It is more complex than that. I don't have access to recent literature, but Iatrogenic part of the DID usually refers to the therapist eliciting/encouraging/reinforcing some of the more bizarre symptoms, such as multiple alters, etc. Except in the legal realm (where the prosecution would prefer to believe there is no disorder at all, or that every case is malingering), I don't think most psychiatrists and psychologists that encounter disassociation and other symptomatology in patients say that there is no disorder at all.

DID got a bad name through Sybil and The Three Faces of Eve. Things got out of hand. The psychiatrist who treated poet Anne Sexton wrote a book about his treatment of her that stirred the pot.

DSM has had the effect of reifying disorders. When the Borderline personality disorder was first named, there ensued a big hullabaloo over "Borderline" what? Regardless of the terminology, I think most clinicians recognize the cluster of symptoms (many with overlap with DID) when they come across it, and the diagnosis is useful for communication between professional clinicians.

Part of the problem is that DSM belongs to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) whose basic clinical approach was/is psychodynamic. Psychologists, being trained in the research model and psychometrics, began generating data that was at odds with DSM. Meanwhile, since the DSM has to be used for diagnosis, mental health professionals used the terms but with different meanings. This didn't make much difference until the last 30 years or so, when the APA began to be pressured to provide date supporting their various diagnoses and to modify the DSM to be more data-driven. They are in this middle of this process now. Meanwhile we have researchers, some or even most, with no clinical experience who are tripping out over the idea of meta-analysing enough data to death to tease out these diagnoses but are frustrated because clinicians lost interest in the diagnosis, using others to convey what they mean. But meanwhile advocacy group have flourished over these issues, DID, attachment disorders, trauma-based disorders etc. Read Attachment Therapy!

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to avoid confusing your beliefs and what you are personally familiar with about a topic with the broader picture. The line "Except in the legal realm (where the prosecution would prefer to believe there is no disorder at all, or that every case is malingering), I don't think most psychiatrists and psychologists that encounter disassociation and other symptomatology in patients say that there is no disorder at all." is coming from a peculiar position that seems to think most critics are lawyers, which is not the case, and presupposes disassociation as a real thing. I am familiar with lots of psychologists who say it isn't a real disorder, and many of them have been saying it for decades already. And, you know, when those lawyers go to court they are relying on expert witnesses, who are professionals in the field. I think at this point it may be that more than half of therapists think of DID as a real mental condition, but the minority who say otherwise is a sizable one, and it's getting closer every year to the 51% that will make them the new majority. There was a time not too long ago when most therapists thought of homosexuality of a disorder, and that changed once the minority spread enough common sense that they became the majority. Wikipedia's NPOV policies says we must cover all notable controversies, and this is certainly one of them. DreamGuy (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• well, I am a professional in the field. I think you are misunderstanding my informal wording above. I'd didn't say what you purport. As a psychologist I've had a very successful practice as a forensic expert, accepted as an expert by several court systems in the US, testifying on this subject and others such as diagnosis, malingering, domestic abuse, trauma, PTSD, insanity pleas, competency etc. So it's not as if I don't know anything, DreamGuy, though perhaps you know more. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the worst DID article on the entire internet

It's amazing how a group of like minded people twist and turn things, including WP rules - deceiving those editors on WP that do not know much about the disorder, (thinking they are defending a NPOV rule) just to try and prove that DID is not real - to what end? Why the emotion for those who do not believe it is even real. There is a serious agenda on the WP DID and it's downright sick! There are few people that have such a stake in trying to disprove a known mental disorder (one as common as Schizophrenia) - that is known to be usually caused by severe, constant and early child abuse, but those few are dogmatic in their attempts.~ty (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

well, I don't agree with the article and think it's misleading in some ways. But so was your version. You can't just take over an article that's been in existence for a while and implement your own version. If you want the article to change, then you have to work with other editors on rewriting the article. I agree that it's somewhat POV the way it is, yes, but your's was too. Plus your version didn't follow wikipedia's basic guidelines for writing an article on a medical diagnosis. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. There are different points of view in the scientific community (which this article is about); it is a medical diagnosis and not meant to represent one person's experience. A medical diagnosis is a form of communication between medical professionals. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Mathew - then how can you even allow something from Sybil to be in this article. That is from a book and movie that have been so twisted by the media. If this woman had DID has nothing to do with a medical article, any more than if Jekyll and Hyde did.

I think that almost all professionals agree that there is a disorder. The question is what is it? It is likely, as many suggest, that there is a continuum of dissociative disorders. Also likely, the disorder is co-morbid with other disorders. What is questioned primarily is whether some of the more bizarre symptoms of DID, like the "alters" may have originally been created by therapists. It's agreed that those with dissociative disorders are highly suggestible, so this explanation is plausible. Most of the other symptoms have been recognized by one diagnosis or another by the medical community for a long time. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the first 2 points is what the general consensus of the research world does say. ~ty (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

As for the rest of the paragraph - I have DID. I never went to therapy until after the psudoseizures got out of control along with many other things. How could a therapist induce something in me when I never saw one! This is the case with many with DID! Alters are not bizarre. All people have self states that make up the self. In DID those states are simply more dissociated - or as called dissociated self states. This is not in question. I think most in the psychology world understand this. They also know that people cannot have more than one personality. They have states or parts that make up the personality. he he... do you really take me as being highly suggestible? Do not put us all into one big lump! Some people are highly suggestible! Some are not. Comorbidity is not an acceptable answer to what DID is. As you said, the disorders are along a spectrum and they do overlap.~ty (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

As Daniel Santos pointed out, WLU's various versions of the article has been there is there because no one is allowed to fix it - it is not a consensus article by any means what-so-ever! Once I was able to work on the article, I had no problems with WLU or anyone helping. Heck I asked on a board for non-biased editors to help! Instead WLU does a full revert back to his own version. This happened to not just me, but TomCloyd and I am willing to actually bet my life most others. FF did her best to try and work with WLU and was able to add some correct information, but still it was full of biased mistruths she could not get rid of. There are guards around the castle WLU & DG) and the truth is not allowed to stand here. As I have explained, so many times. I have never made an edit that was allowed to stand - other than the addition of the Janet pic - and I am willing to bet that is the same with most editors that come here and try and work on the page. There is no working with the 2 editors that stand guard here. When someone comes to this page like TomCloyd did, that does know both WP (he was a regional ambassador for WP and he wrote most of the PTSD article on WP) and who has done a vast amount of work on and with DID, the guards get rid of them. I remember TomCloyd staying up all night to work on the DID page and in the morning WLU reverted everything. TomCloyd did discuss things on the talk page as he was suppose to, but nothing he ever wrote - as far as I can tell, was allowed on the actual DID article. As for Iatrogenisis - I don't think anyone says this cannot happen, but again, therapists do not do this sort of thing anymore! As E. Howell says - page 207 (2011) "As with many interventions, the problem arises from a therapist's lack of skill, rather than from the intervention." So as I stated, yes, poor therapy was done in the past, but it is not now. That's like saying surgery is done without disinfecting. Well it was in the past, but we learned not to do this. Only the most foolish would do so. R. Kluft reports that those parts "created under experimental hypnosis are highly limited, do not have a center of subjectivity, initiative and personal history and they don't last. In addition, in DID treatment, the number of alters usually decreases. If a therapist was creating alters, the numbers of alters should increase." The Kluft references are old because nothing better has been published since. You know this is how real research works: (Kluft 1982, 1991, 1994). I can copy this page for you or any other you would like to see and email it to you. I can't even see the rational of anyone calling this DID making of a temporary alter DID. Do you have a clue the life those with DID have had? To say an alter created in therapy IS DID is so wrong! DID is not just about alters!~ty (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The entire internet? Wow, that's impressive.

I'm occupied with other things right now, but I still plan on reviewing Tylas' edits and integrating the reasonable ones. Once that's done, I've got a good dozen new articles to be integrated. So the work goes on, despite being the worst DID article on the entire internet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I read them all the last few days and without a doubt this is the worst. The work will go on slanting the article more and more to your extreme POV WLU. Myself and others are working on a project to rate the sites in a much more scientific method, but I would be shocked to find a worse one. It's not the writing that is bad, it's not your WP knowledge - it's the fact you present iatrogensis as equal to trauma causes and at times the site will even say that DID is not real. Take this statement in the lead for example: "Interest in multiple personalities increased after the publication of Sybil, a book describing one of the most famous reported cases. The patient this book was based upon later stated that she had reported having more than one personality to seem more interesting to her therapist." What does this have to do with having DID other than you are actually saying people that saw the movie or read the book all of the sudden became so messed up they got DID. What about all those that did not ever read or see anything to do with Sybil. What about all those that were not lost in the therapy world - misdiagnosed? Only the worst sites report this sort of mumbo-jumbo or copy text such as this that is often taken out of context - loosing the real meaning. I do not have an ego invested here, and don't need my VERSION to stand as you do, what I need is the truth to be on the DID page. Did the movie "A Brilliant Mind" cause people to all of the sudden get Schizophrenia? That is simply ridiculous. ~ty (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

reply to Tylas

• If TomCloyd wrote most of the PTSD article and his focus is PTSD to DID - I don't know what this means exactly. But there is disagreement in the field about the trauma etiology of DID, whereas for PTSD there's not.

Also, with DSM in the midst of making a switch from a categorical (clinical) model, to a model basis on research data that is more continuum based, there is much confusion because of this. The old time model was based completely on a clinical interview.

My DSM-II (1968) has just a few sentences for every diagnosis, and a few had a couple of subtypes - and DSM-II is 127 pages long including index. It classifies what is now DID as a subtype of 300.1 Hysterical neurosis: 300.14 Hysterical neurosis, dissociative type. "In the dissociative type, alterations may occur in the patient's state of consciousness or in his identity, to produce such symptoms as amnesia, somnambulism, fugue, and multiple personality."

So the general symptoms have been recognized for a long time in human history. Just the name and the cause has varied.

The quotation from Kluft doesn't make sense to me. Kluft reports that those parts "created under experimental hypnosis are highly limited, do not have a center of subjectivity, initiative and personal history and they don't last. In addition, in DID treatment, the number of alters usually decreases. If the therapist were creating alters, their numbers should increase." - This is not true, as the goal of those therapists like Colin Ross who "deal" with alters is to integrate them, therefore reducing the number of alters to hopefully one integrated personality. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Rewrote my answer - it should be similar to what was lost in the edit conflict. a.) There is for the more complex forms of PTSD because it again is believed to stem from childhood abuse for the most part. b.) There is actually much less confusion due to the change. Those that are use to an old model simply might find change difficult. c.)DSM II - You are showing your age. ;) d.) I would say it's more of now it's better known what the cause is. The name changed to again show our advance of knowledge. We now know one cannot have multiple personalities, but everyone has multiple parts to their one personality and those with DID have dissociated parts to their personality. e.) Kluft quote - I answered this but it was lost in an edit conflict. Treatment goal is to breakdown the dissociative barriers between parts in those with DID. This will increase communication between those states, similar if not just like the ego state in the normal personality. The goal is not to make one personality. No one has one whole unified self, everyone has multiple parts to their one personality. Yeah, Ross is good!

more reply to Tylas

• "iatrogensis as equal to trauma causes and at times the site will even say that DID is not real." Very very few in the professional literature claim that all cases are caused by iatrogensis, and those tend to be people who are concerned with malingering, like lawyers etc. There really isn't a plausible reason for mass numbers of people to pretend to have "alters"; some may be attention-seeking, but as everyone gets sick of them, the attention-seeking won't pay off for long. Most therapists are frustrated by these cases. They are similar in this way to Borderline personality disorder.

A therapist trained in DID would not fall for this. There is so much they watch for. Every reaction. The differences between real DID and someone that feels the need to fake it for whatever reason are stark differences! I could not even begin to react the way my dissociated parts do and at times they do, for the reasons they do, etc... and do to this during years and and years of therapy would seem outrageous. In my case I have 325 alters (polyfragmented and florid). Can you image trying to remember how each one should act to fake it? Someone faking DID for whatever reason, should be an excuse to cause harm to those who do have DID!~ty (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

a.) then any legal concerns should be in the legal section of the DID article. This has nothing to do with a medical page on what DID is. It's misleading. b.) Agree. Pretending to have dissociated states would not work with a therapist that is trained in dealing with those with DID. Such as therapist watches our every reaction. Those things cannot be faked, over and over again and for years! c.) DID is on a continuum with other trauma based disorders and separate dissociated states will have other disorders, but what is important to understand, which a therapist trained in treating and diagnosing DID knows is that a diagnosis of DID takes precedence over any other diagnosis - treating DID as a whole has been proven to show improvement in patients, rather than attempting to fix the problems of just one dissociated part.~ty (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Most in the mental health field believe Dissociative disorders exist. The etiology and the symptoms necessary for a diagnosis is what's under contention, mainly because they're working out a consensus version for DSM V. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. If an alter were induced then the numbers would increase. In therapy the goal is the breakdown the dissociative barriers so that dissociated parts of the self can communicate and work more like an ego state.

There is no contention as for symptoms. There is refinement with increased knowledge. What is in the DSM is what defines the minimum symptoms needed to diagnose DID. As for etiology, almost no one argues this, however many research articles begin with "there is controversy" or something to this wording because the subject of the article is to put the argument made by a very few researchers to rest, not to take those words out of context and increase the controversy.~ty (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You do understand that different dissociated parts can have various other dissociative disorders - correct? This is your comorbidity and again this is only a mistake made by those who are not qualified to work or diagnosis DID patients. A diagnosis of DID takes precedence over any other diagnosis - treating DID as a whole has been proven to show improvement in patients, rather than attempting to fix the problems of just one dissociated part.~ty (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Tylas

• The most frequent co-morbid diagnosis with DID is Borderline personality disorder. The various "lesser" dissociative diagnoses are mostly subsumed under the diagnosis of DID and wouldn't be consider a co-morbid or separate diagnoses. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Tylas

• Answered what? Where are you getting your information from? There are various DID advocacy organizations and "for profit" treatments, but their information is self-serving and not reliable or valid.

You can retrieve you edit in an edit conflict by hitting the back button, copying your post, cancel the page, and then repost on the new page which will contain the edit that you conflicted with. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mathew :) Answered your questions, but they were lost in an edit conflict. Here goes again. ~ty (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

OMG - you sound like WLU! Please do not refer to the ISSTD in such a manner. The greatest minds in the area of trauma research support the ISSTD. This is in no way a self serving organization! As for where have I got my information - it's from reading a vast amount of CURRENT literature. It's not from one place. ~ty (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"The International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation is an international, non-profit, professional association organized to develop and promote comprehensive, clinically effective and empirically based resources and responses to trauma and dissociation and to address its relevance to other theoretical constructs. The Board of Directors of the ISSTD makes all major decisions and sets the direction for the organization. Our Committees work to carry out our mission and to suggest new directions for the future. Although we are primarily a professionally oriented society, we welcome both professional and lay members. Check out the different categories of membership. Education is one of our primary goals. We work to achieve that goal partly through training programs, conferences and the Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. The ISSTD has given awards to professionals and lay people who have contributed to the study of trauma and dissociation and to the ISSTD. To facilitate the education and training of graduate students, the David Caul Graduate Research Grants were establish in memory of David Caul, an esteemed and devoted mentor."

I and many others with DID do not have symptoms of BPD or do not have BPD. My Mother and sister both have it however. Again, those therapists trained in working with DID would not fall for this. Of course a dissociated part may have BPD, but that does not mean the person has BPD instead of DID. I will dig up some references on you for this, but PTSD is the disorder that is most frequently comorbid with DID. ~ty (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review - The problem is that I have tried and I am sure many others have as well. WLU is well engrained into the WP culture and has many friends here. It does not appear to matter what is correct, just who your friends are. Me I am rather WP illiterate, but I do know DID. The WP culture appears, at least so far, to protect those who are long time editors - no matter if the information they present is correct. I would love WLU to put forth his vast knowledge of WP and present correct information on the DID instead of his extreme POV. WLU, I do think you are an excellent WP editor, I just wish you would not use that talent to push an extreme POV on the DID page.~ty (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Peer review is different, and hasn't been done on the page that I'm aware of. A better approach might be mediation.

Actually, the problem is that you don't understand what is correct, and you think it's a cabal. When several editors agree with me, it's not because they like me. It's because of a common understanding of the policies and guidelines. The problem isn't that you keep running into my friends - it's that you don't understand wikipedia and your own biases. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Odd, it seems that when TomCloyd was banned from the DID page, a senior editor there at the mediation said something to the effect of - he should have more friends on WP. I am sure you know where the exact quote is WLU - you are good at that sort of thing.~ty (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to WLU

I don't think mediation would work well. This article needs a high degree of expertise, such as those with medical experience. There are so many misunderstandings in the article. I wish someone like Casliber would weigh in. He has no prior agenda regarding DID. We need neutral editors with no investment in a POV. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Mathew - Agreed that we need people with a high degree of expertise in trauma psychology, that are not swayed by WLU's wikipedia back and forth types of arguments - that he is good at. I never said the man does not have talents! The fact you are willing to try and make the DID article accurate gives me great hope! I am looking forward to an article that reflects what DID really is. Thank you!~ty (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying the same things over and over on this talk page serves no useful purpose, Ty, because pretty much every comment you make is backed up only by your opinion and not by Wikipedia policy. The statement "we need people with a high degree of expertise in trauma psychology" presupposes that the only reasonable explanation for this diagnosis is trauma, when the controversy is over whether that's true or not. That argument is like saying an article on alleged demonic possession needs an expert on demons. DreamGuy (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Dream Guy: This is not true. If one studies both sides of a subject, then one has the full knowledge to work with. If one never studied the trauma side of DID, then they are only reporting what they know and are ignorant of the whole picture. It's like having a general surgeon do a heart transplant rather than a Doc who specializes in this type of surgery. The Doc that specializes in heart surgery, knows general medicine, where the general surgeon would not know heart surgery no where near as well as a heart surgeon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylas (talk • contribs)

Good grief. You clearly haven't read more than one side, so you certainly shouldn't be pretending other people need to read more. In fact I have my doubts that you have read any of the sides, because you keep making odd claims that even DID proponents don't make. DreamGuy (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Mathew. If you think there are misunderstandings, please identify them. Do not assume that nobody here is capable of assessing them. If something is true and undisputed, then the various experts would agree, and it can be (and must be) included. But when sources disagree, we can't just pick a source and say that anyone who disagrees with that side misunderstands the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Mathew: PubMed I did a quick search of articles since 2011 and found this information: "The most prevalent comorbidity in DDNOS and DID was PTSD. Comorbidity profiles of patients with DID and DDNOS were very similar to those in PTSD (high prevalence of anxiety, somatoform disorders, and depression), but differed significantly from those of patients with depression and anxiety disorders. These findings confirm the hypothesis that PTSD, DID, and DDNOS are phenomenologically related syndromes that should be summarized within a new diagnostic category."~ty (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources aren't useful here -- you've been told this already. Picking one journal article you happen to agree with in no way demonstrates anything other than what those authors think. DreamGuy (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Dream Guy - Pick up just about anything on the subject and it will say the same. PTSD is considered to have the highest comorbid rate with DID than anything else. Why don't you go and read a bit and you will find the same thing. In addition, I was answering a direct question of Mathews.~ty (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Causes

The WP article reports that reference [25] says: "The cause of DID is a point of considerable controversy, with debate occurring between the developmental trauma and iatrogenic/sociocognitive hypothesis. Questions to propose which is correct include whether the condition is equally prevalent in and out of therapy, whether diagnostic clusters are due to inappropriate techniques or greater clinician awareness of the condition and prevalence rates across cultures; these questions remain largely unanswered.[25]"~ty (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What ref [25] actually says: "Conclusion: Despite continuing research on the related concepts of trauma and dissociation, childhood DID itself appears to be an extremely rare phenomenon that few researchers have studied in depth. Nearly all of the research that does exist on childhood DID is from the 1980s and 1990s and does not resolve the ongoing controversies surrounding the disorder."~ty (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid reading two sentences of an article and jumping to conclusions about what the rest of the article does and does not say. If you'd bothered to read even just the first part of the abstract you'd see "Dissociative identity disorder (DID) remains a controversial diagnosis due to conflicting views on its etiology. Some attribute DID to childhood trauma and others attribute it to iatrogenesis." which is extremely close to the first sentence you were trying to claim it didn't really say. Read a little bit more and you'll find the rest. If you are going to try to raise objections of this sort you will need to put in some actual effort. DreamGuy (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A better reference and conclusion to use for cause is from the following 2011 article: "Based on this review, we propose a revised definition of dissociation for DSM-5...." Conclusion: "There is a growing body of evidence linking the dissociative disorders to a trauma history and to specific neural mechanisms." Full text is on the net in pdf form Authors: Spiegel, Loewenstein, Fernandex, Sar, Simeon, Vermetten, Cardena, Dell~ty (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just cherry picking sources again so the only viewpoint that gets into the article is the ones you agree with. DreamGuy (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Please note that SAR, is part of this group of keen researchers working on updating the DSM-5. He is not what Dreamguy claims he is in the section below.~ty (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)~ty (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Dreamguy - I have addressed this before, but again - saying there is controversy in an article such as this is because the researchers are supplying evidence to stop the so called controversy, not so that the words can be taken out of context to support it.~ty (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

But, as already shown, you were the only one taking his words out of context - either not bothering to read them and suggesting they said something other than what they really did or purposefully misrepresenting what was said and hoping nobody would catch you on it. DreamGuy (talk)

In addition. I did not do as you claim. I examined the article. Here is my conclusion of it, however my point is not that it is not an article that should not be used, it does not support the statement that it references.

The cited study is about etiology. "The purpose of this article is to review the published cases of childhood DID in order to evaluate its scientific status, and to answer research questions related to the etiological models." The idea is that if DID is trauma-caused (presumably in childhood), then studies of "... DID/multiple personality disorder in children" should support the model by reporting clear DID in said children.

We don't know how many studies are included in this review; we only know the number of DID cases examined, and that number is small. Logically, if there were double the studies, we'd have more cases. Can we infer prevalence from raw number? No. This is a major flaw.

Why is the researcher even looking at case studies? They tell you NOTHING about prevalence, since they are case studies of individuals. He seems to be implying that if we have a small number of case studies reported that suggest a low population prevalence, though the abstract doesn't clearly say that. This logic is very very weak, if it even flies at all. Second flaw.

And what is the nature of individuals studied? " Nearly all cases (93%) emerged from samples of children in treatment, and multiple personalities was the presenting problem in 23% of the case studies." This is clearly a clinical sample. An incidence of 23% DID diagnoses is very high, compared with the adult clinical population studies which Ross review, and which is widely cited. His highest summarized study reports a 12% incidence rate in a clinical population.

What is the relation of this prevalence to the general population of children (and by the way what is a "child"?)? We don't know. None of the studies reviewed in this study address that. Third flaw.

"Despite continuing research on the related concepts of trauma and dissociation, childhood DID itself appears to be an extremely rare phenomenon that few researchers have studied in depth." Rare? 23% is rare? This conclusion simply is not supported by the reviewers own summary. Fourth flaw.

There are few in depth studies, but of what? The disorder, or its prevalence? They are not the same thing.

I find this review study to have multiple serious flaws, with the biggest being that the key conclusion given does not derive from the study itself.

Now, the review is attempting to look at the question of etiology in adult cases by looking at studies of childhood DID. That's OK, and better than inferring etiology in adults from psychological histories of same. However, that last approach is commonly used with all disorders, and not at all invalid. It's just that ideally there is a better way. This sort of situation and analysis is seen with a great many disorders, because we usually don't see them until they are well along - and that often takes years. The actual question to answer is what is cause of DID in the general population? If one were to use this sort of direction to go about answering it then this would be a far better study to use. Article But again, I gave the best solution to this problem above by using the 2011 review article's conclusion: "There is a growing body of evidence linking the dissociative disorders to a trauma history and to specific neural mechanisms." ~ty (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

LEt's try this yet again, because you don't seem to get it: We are here to write about the opinions of the *experts*, not what *you* think. "I find this review study to have multiple serious flaws" - so? We're supposed to listen to you -- a self-professed mental patient -- over a published expert? I don't know if you think you are your friend the alleged DID-specialist who lived in the middle of nowhere who was in the process of being banned here when he left or just pasing on what he tells you, but even if that's true he's not a recognized expert either. The author of this study said what he said, and your rationalizations to try to make it go away will not work. DreamGuy (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Though intemperate, DG is correct. We do not use editor opinion to decide if a study is flawed or not unless there is very good reason and clear consensus. If you can find another source which says that source is flawed, then we can include the criticism. Personal opinion is not sufficient. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

New Image

"An artist's interpretation of one person with many personalities" I love the image and think it makes for a more attractive page, but using "personalities" is confusing to those that do not understand that no human can have more than one personality. We all have multiple parts to our one personality. ~ty (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh??? If that's the case, then you just admitted you think multiple personality disorder isn't real. Can we expect you to give up arguing about it and admit you've just been trolling us the whole time? Or do you have some unique personal interpretation of those words so they mean something different to you than what they do to the rest of the world?

And it probably comes as no surprise that I think the image does not belong here. Fan fantasy art does not belong on an encyclopedia article. But since I respect the edits of the person who put it there I decided merely to fix the caption and discuss it instead of immediately deleting it. DreamGuy (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What? There is no such thing as any human having multiple personalities. Please do some reading. There has been significant changes since the 70's and 80's as far as what is understood. Knowledge grows. Things change. Yeah, Doc James is pretty cool. :) ~ty (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, sometimes you're just unbelievable. DreamGuy (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad sources and fringe authors treated as experts

Primary sources are a real problem, especially when they are not review articles but author's making personal opinion pieces. The article space could be used to argue any old thing back and forth just by referring to what specific individuals had to say.

I was going to try to remove all such examples, but there were so many I only got to this one:

"In a 2011 publication, Vedat Sar postulated other possible causes for the apparent differences in the prevalence of DID and other dissociative disorders, including different preferences in diagnostic instruments, cultural differences in the interpretation of presenting symptoms, differences in mental health care systems and differences in the frequency of overall mental health treatment seeking behavior around the world. [ref name=Sar2011]>"

Sar2011 = 26. Sar, V. (2011). "Epidemiology of Dissociative Disorders: An Overview" (pdf). Epidemiology Research International 2011: 1–9. DOI:10.1155/2011/404538. http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/eri/2011/404538.pdf. edit

This is a primary source document from some author from Istanbul University to a journal that appears to be one of the low quality Internet-only type that spams random people asking them to be submitters and editors without checking their qualifications. We shouldn't be using primary sources, but certainly not from this journal, as multiple outside experts deem it and all journals from this publisher (Hindawi) to be mass producing low quality journals with no indication of genuine quality peer review. See: http://www.google.com/search?q=hindawi+spam

Elsewhere in the article, the opinions of Colin A Ross are used to try to argue against the SCM viewpoint by advancing his opinions directly in the text of the article. Not only is this not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, but this person is a WP:FRINGE author on alleged government mind control. "In BLUEBIRD: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists, Dr. Ross provides proof, based on 15,000 pages of documents obtained from the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act, that the Manchurian Candidate is fact, not fiction. He describes the experiments conducted by psychiatrists to create amnesia, new identities, hypnotic access codes, and new memories in the minds of experimental subjects." Besides this conspiracy theory, Ross was one of the big proponents of the Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria of the '80s and '90s, and also the target of several lawsuits for medical malpractice. We should not use his arguments just in a vacuum as it does not give the full context of his statements. If he is discussed, enough information on his background is required to give readers enough information to make up their mind about how to weigh what he has to say.

Now that I think about it, one thing I think this article hasn't had yet but which really belongs here is a summary of th various lawsuits related to misdiagnosis of this condition. There have been a number of them, and they have had prominent coverage in various news sources that meet WP:RS criteria. Certainly the round up coverage of these gives a broader context to this topic, and is something our readers should be aware of. DreamGuy (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Dreamguy - Please note that SAR, is part of a group of keen researchers working on updating the DSM-5. Ross is one of the lead researchers in DID and is quite credible. ~ty (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well of course you would think that. Sar I have no concerns about. He's entitled to his opinion, and we can cover it if it's notable and if it's in a reliable source, which I don't think that journal is. It is possible his opinion raises to the level of notable regardless of who publishes it if he is considered to have expert viewpoints. Ross, however, is off the deep end. If we use his opinions they have to be put into greater context, per WP:FRINGE rules. To do otherwise is to knowingly hide relevant information from readers to make his viewpoint sound more credible for solely POV-pushing reasons. DreamGuy (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

References

The situation

I have been asked by a number of the editors here to review the situations:

1) First of all people need to stop insulting each other per WP:CIVIL. This behavior will only get people banned and this page protected going forwards. This means no calling people "trolls" and no saying people are living in the "80s". If all could go back and remove their OWN off topic comments it would be appreciated.

2) Everyone must use high quality secondary sources such as review articles from the last 5 or at most 10 years when dealing with health care information. Things are more flexible when dealing with content looking at society and cultural issues. But primary sources can never be used to refute secondary ones. Sometimes due to these policies (see WP:MEDRS) Wikipedia will not be the most cutting edge. If the ideas are accepted by the general scientific community they will soon be in a secondary source and thus usable here. Simply give it some time and there is lots of other stuff that needs improvement while you wait.

3) If there are two or more high quality secondary sources that say different simply state the position of both. We are not here to push the "truth" only just to summarize the best available research / the current scientific position.

4) I am happy to comment on specific issues but they are hard to figure out on this talk page. When dealing with controversial topics it is best to present changes as "we should add X as it is supported by this review article from 2010 PMID ####". Ideally all primary sources should eventually be replaced by secondary ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 18:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

An example

• We do not appear to comment on the number of cases by gender. This references says it is 5 to 9 times more common in females than males.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 18:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Reply to Doc James - Thank you Sir. To get you up to date - the current DID page is a version written primarily by WLU and I am not asking to revert anything back that I have tried to add to the page in the past. I have no problem working with what is here at the present. WLU does a good job with WP guidelines. I would just like to make it clear that the only edit I have on the entire page is the image of Janet and text under the image and that was a battle to have there! I would very much like to be able to work on this page and have hope in doing so with you here. In the past all edits (at least I think this is true, but I might have missed one somewhere) I make have been reverted, no matter if I have done them them fast or slow. Usually I get stuck on the talk page, such as now and never edit because WLU and Dreamguy do not allow any edits - no matter what research I present. I can post here on the talk page all I want, but they have not allowed anything I do to go past this point before. I totally agree with all you wrote above and am sorry I said the 80's thing about Dreamguy - I reworded it nicer. I will be nicer in the future. I promise. :) ~ty (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Question for Doc James - I have recently published books by experts in DID and trauma psychology that cite the best research available by those that do research for a living - is book information permitted. I can photograph and send pages to anyone interested so that all have access. I have a vast library of books on DID and trauma and have even newer ones on way that are pre-ordered.~ty (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Major medical textbook such as the one I have quoted above are allowed. Many books are not. Specifically books that would be considered popular press / popular science, or written for patients are not suitable. As a good role of thumb, if the book is one that a university class uses as one of their primary texts it should be okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 20:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I so hate popular press and popular science! I tend to only read only material written for psychologists. Does this mean we can get rid of the awful Sybil and Billy Milligan stuff on the page?~ty (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That is content on "society and culture" issues rather than medical ones. It however could use better references and IMO does not belong in the lead. I like popular science books, they are just not appropriate references for Wikipedia :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 20:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Doc James - To make it clear, we agree that Sybil, Milligan and other forms of pop culture media do not belong in the lead. Is this correct? ~ty (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless better references can be found I think this text should be moved lower in the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 21:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Personality

• Personality vs Parts of the Personality - Question for Doc James - Can we agree that the use of the word personality is confusing to most and not use it other than as it should be used - such as "parts of the personality", "multiple personality disorder", etc... Is it okay to fix the text under the image you put on the page. I really love that image and see no reason that art should not be used on a medical page.~ty (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to change the text under the image in the lead. With respect to personality it is misunderstood / not understood similar to how intelligence is misunderstood / not understood. Not sure what you had in mind? Happy to have all weight in on this one, as I am on all questions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 21:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Source question to Doc James:

Gillig, P. M. (2009). "Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Controversial Diagnosis". Psychiatry (Edgmont (Pa. : Township)) 6 (3): 24–29. PMC 2719457. PMID 19724751. Is this a true review article or only the author choosing what to reference to outline the history? It doesn't seem like a systematic review article to me, yet it is cited 12 times. I don't see what citing so much does to help the article. What do you think? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not a systematic review. But there are other types of reviews... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 21:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Question for Doc James - Do be clear, this review is acceptable for use in the DID article. Correct?~ty (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Pubmed does not list it as a review. Thus I would typically not use this source especially when the topic is controversial. To find reviews using pubmed simply type in your search and than on the left you can limit the search to review articles from the last 10 years. 23 come up with brackets used more if not used http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Dissociative%20identity%20disorder%22 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 22:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Gillig is a recent, comprehensive review of DID covering most aspects of the condition and discussing both aspects of the controversy - traumagenic and iatrogenic. I'm guessing it appears so many times at least in part because it's one of those sources that is useful to cite very basic information and definitions (i.e. it functions somewhat like a tertiary source so specific statements don't get removed per WP:PROVEIT). Personally, I find focusing on how many times a source is cited less important than whether each individual citation is appropriate and adequately summarizes the source. Because Gillig mentions both sides of the controversy without taking a position, it seems a reasonable source to use for basic info. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a systematic review per Doc James, meaning the authors POV is more likely to be in it. See if you can reduce or eliminate it, as it's not really of the quality we'd ideally like to see in this article. Maybe we could make a featured article out of this! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It however looks like a literature review... But systematic reviews are better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've no issue with replacing it (particularly if a newer or more specific source is available) but right now it's appended to mostly uncontroversial information (i.e. DID has lots of comorbidities, DID is controversial, DID is associated with trauma). I really don't think it's a matter of reducing its use, so much as supplanting it when we've got something better.

And I remember when I read through it that it seemed quite neutral, if anything favouring the traumagenesis position more. It mentions both sides of the debate, it didn't strike me as partisan at all (but I read it months back, I could be wrong). Again, replacing it is perfectly fine if we can find a better source for any of the text it verifies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead/Lede Working Version

The working version is here in my [[4]] - the version that Dreamguy just reverted. Then I reverted back, but I know that will not last, but wanted to copy it to my sandbox at least. It was just starting to look good with Mathew and Doc's help!

Question for Doc - We can fix Dreamguy's concerns then put it back. Correct?~ty (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How is this for a start?

Dissociative identity disorder (DID), also known as multiple personality disorder is a mental disorder characterized by at least two distinct and relatively enduring identities or dissociated personality states that alternately control a person's behavior, and are accompanied by memory impairment for important information not explained by ordinary forgetfulness.

This disorder is thought to be trauma based and caused by pathological levels of stress during the earliest years of childhood, prior to the age where a unitary sense of self forms. During infancy behavior is organized as a set of discrete behavioral states which link and group together in sequences over time. The original trauma in those with DID is usually a failure of secure attachment with a primary caregiver which impedes linkage. Diagnosis is often difficult as there is considerable comorbidity with other mental disorders.