Talk:Dissociative identity disorder/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

moved from peer review page until reviewer has a chance to respond - don't want to overwhelm him with our continuing comments!

  • Expert consensus and the main issue of the DID page: I will leave the in-depth information in my sandbox until everyone has had time to read and reply on the DID talk page. I do understand we have the suggestions made by the peer reviewer to attend to first, but this is long and I don't want to blindside anyone, so read when you have time. Editors please, let's give our peer reviewer time to catch up before replying to this on the DID talk page. Thank you.
  • The world's top researchers in DID report that there is NO actual research for the sociocognitive method (SCM). pdf file (p.124) The expert consensus presents 3 models for DID etiology and the SCM is not one of them. There is NO empirical support for the SCM. pdf file(p.122-124)
Is/are there any source substantiating your assertion that these are the top researches in DID? Is/are any of those sources from somewhere other than the ISSTD? These are certainly experts on one aspect of DID, the traumagenic hypothesis, but that's not the sole source of publications on DID. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: I did not post this here. It can be deleted. It is repetition of what I did post below. Tanya~talk page 22:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Main controversy on the DID page

Since the topic was moved here and addressed above by WLU, I will respond:

To answer WLU's continued support of his fringe POV of the SC methods: please note the huge list of the top experts in DID that contributed to the recent (2011) work. pdf file (p.115-187)

Answer: I am drawing from mainstream consensus documents. As for the question of weight to be given to the SCM, the APA (in the DSM)and the ISSTD give at the most passing mention to the SCM. The ISSTD document explicitly states that there is no empirical research for the SCM. pdf file (p.124)

* What is the mainstream consensus re: traumagenisis?

Answer: Where does the consensus model come from? It has to be from the American Psychiatric Association (who develops and publishes the DSM, of course), and the research specialists in the field of dissociative disorders. Where else would you get it? There are 3 MODELS that are considered by the APA and all 3 models should be presented on the WP DID page. pdf file (p.122-123)

* How much weight is to be given to dissenting views?

Answer: The expert consensus statement on treatment guidelines for DID states that there is actual research for the SCM. This dissenting view, with no research, is just speculation. The expert consensus in DID report that there is NO actual research for the sociocognitive method (SCM). With no research support, any alternative ideas are just speculations. pdf file (p.124)

Bottom line: Three methods of etiology are supported by the expert consensus. None of those include SG methods. pdf file (p.122-124) The expert consensus statement on treatment guidelines for DID states that there is NO actual research for the SCM. pdf file (p.124)

See my sandbox if more detailed information is needed, but this should have answered the question adequately Tanya~talk page 16:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


Posting the same link multiple times doesn't make that link any more convincing to me personally, nor does it make sources disappear. The ISSTD guidelines, in my opinion, does little more than demonstrate that theirs is only one of several viewpoints. Quite clearly, the large number of peer reviewed articles critical of the traumagenic hypothesis indicates there are people who believe the SCM or at least a non-traumagenic model, has some utility and truth value, and in at least one author's view (PMID 21829044, Boysen, 2011), the issues have not been empirically resolved adequately. And the DSM is a descriptive document, it doesn't make conclusions on etiology, itself noting that there are issues with the traumagenic origins of DID (not to mention the most recent version is 12 years old). Further, even if the APA came to an explicit conclusion (and I don't think it has), that doesn't mean people can't dissent and disagree, and that those disagreements shouldn't be noted.
You calling the ISSTD guidelines the mainstream consensus doesn't make it the mainstream consensus, and doesn't make dissenting publications disappear. You can keep repeating your belief that the ISSTD is the mainstream consensus, I'll keep pointing to the many sources that state criticisms. And again, even if the ISSTD document was the mainstream consensus, the dissenting opinions are not fringe theories and per WP:NPOV, should be discussed.
I would appreciate it if you would stop repeating the same comments in different sections. I see and understand your point, I think it's at minimum ignoring several other sources. We've both said these things in the past, there is no point I see in repeating them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Reply to WLU - I would appreciate it if you would stop pushing your minority/fringe POV on this page. This again Sir is your POV. The multiple links lead directly to the page number so all editors can see that what I am saying is the consensus of the mainstream experts on DID, none of this is my own opinion. You attack me if I ref. everything and you attack me if I don't. It's been going on since the first day I came to this page (without the swearing now) and it's getting really old. Please stop. You wanted everything cited that I say - so I am. A 2011 paper written by many experts in the field is ideal, Just because it was then adopted by the ISSTD does not make it less valid. What I present is that of the Expert consensus on DID! Read the 74 page long paper Sir, They call it - "the expert consensus" - this is my not opinion, it is what is - it is the mainstream consensus of the experts in DID. I have to run but when I come back I will find those exact page numbers for you where it is stated that these DID experts say that this paper reflects the mainstream consensus of the experts in DID and I will give you the direct quotes. pdf file (p.back in a bit with this) Tanya~talk page 19:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with WLU And using the guidelines of the same organization, ISSTD, over and over does not follow WP:MEDRS and is POV:

  • "The best evidence comes primarily from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)."
  • "Systematic reviews of bodies of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation have less reliability when they include non-randomized studies." (ISSTD published guidelines based on one review of the literature and no randomized studies.)
Note that Kluft is over represented in the sources for the ISSTD guidelines. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Reply: You need only give evidence that you've heard and understood my quite reasonable points and I will no longer have need to repeat them.
Reply to Mathew - Would that not be your personal opinion that Kluft is over represented? And does it matter if he is, there are so many DID Experts that contributed to that study. Tanya~talk page 20:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
How many times are we going to keep going in circles? We have done that and WLU keeps taking a phrase from the introduction of an article and using that like it's some proof, while at the same time reverting the work done by those that do not support his SG method POV. This is a circus - round and round and round again. It's crazy! There are 3 models supported by the Mainstream Expert consensus and those should be used. The SG method is a joke. It is what is pushed by the media. This is a serious mental disorder, not some pop culture book to wow the public. I am not getting run off by the circus. I am staying here. Tanya~talk page 20:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, I suggest that you drop it for now until others weigh in. Repeating the same thing over and over on this talk page is bordering on disruptive. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It suggests be concise, keep discussions focused, avoid repeating your own lengthy posts and (among other guidelines):

Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously, as it may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice.

You are violating these guidelines. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

One cannot violate a guideline, but because the few caps I used bother you, I did remove them. Could you give WLU the same lecture please? He has been repeating that same old SC method POV since I arrived on this page. He reverts anything he does not agree with. What is the deal? Why don't you see those things as disruptive? It's getting so dang old! I wrote a short little paragraph, WLU answered with his same old repetition, the same story, the same old Piper and Merkey references that we have seen over and over and over again by him, yet I am the one that gets yelled at. What's up Mathew? The other day you said you attacked me because I did not reference things enough, now that I am, you complain that I am. The references I have been giving refer to various page of the document, so that all editors reading this talk page can find what I am talking about. Also, I was told by both of you to reference everything I say so that it does not seem like my own opinion, so I am. The 2011 expert consensus guidelines summarize the consensus of the mainstream experts, I see no need to go back and find and reference older material, for a talk page, that says the exact same thing. Tanya~talk page 21:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue.
  • Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.
  • Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood.
  • Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion.
  • Avoid excessive emphasis
  • Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts: Readers can read your prior posts, and repeating them, especially lengthy posts, should be strongly discouraged. In some cases, it may be interpreted as an unwillingness to let discussion progress in an orderly manner.
  • It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement.

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Mathew: You Sir need to stay objective and not change the subject at hand - which is DID. To merely cite WP:MEDRS without reference to the specific relevant section you have in mind is citation-bullying. What am I supposed to do with this? Plow through the whole document and come up with my best guess as to what you think is relevant? Be specific in your citations or don't make them. If you want to know what I mean, look at my citations, where I'm very specific. This citation-bullying is an old tactic on WP, and it's an act of bad faith. Don't do it. Give a reference to the section you think relevant. Give me a quote. Make your case or be silent. - Oh I was bold. I will add pretty please to that. :) Tanya~talk page 05:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to All: To answer the questions that have been presented as succinctly as possible: This is the consensus statement of the international professional association for clinicians and researchers into trauma and dissociation disorders, as you well know. There is no competing or contending association. There is no competing consensus statement. If you wish to dispute importance you may do so, but your opinion (or mine) is not of value here - none of us here are experts on DID. Any sources you may cite will also just be opinions, albeit published ones; as I've said before, the proponents of the SC model have no data. There is nothing to empirically resolve, as there is no empirical support for the SC model. The "belief" of the authors to which you refer is all they, or you have. Science is not about belief, it is about data. They have none. The other models approved by the expert consensus on DID have plenty, and the opinion of the centrist consensus is that the data indicate the validity of the traumagenic model. That is the facts, and that's what we must report, unless you wish to turn this article in a polemic for a fringe POV. Is that your intent? If so state it. If not state this is not true. Since the DSM-III, (as previously pointed out) DID has been attributed to trauma, in statements which express probability, not certainty. Science is never about certainty, but rather about degrees of probability. The consistent statement of the DSM is that DID is most likely caused by childhood trauma. I will exhaustively document all this shortly. The DSM does make explicit statements. It is mainstream because it is the professional association for the topic. Again, this is obvious. There is no conflict here. The expert consensus statement clearly explains the mainstream expert consensus on DID. There are a number of criticisms of it, as there are of the DSM, the Jewish Bible, the Christian Bible, the US Constitution, UN Charter, ad infinitum. To assert that there is no consensus because there is dispute is to misunderstand the nature of the word. When I consult Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged), it is clear that current usage allows "consensus" to mean a number of things, and there is conflict (lack of consensus) as to which meaning is preferred. It can mean unanimity. It can also mean majority. The central thrust of the definition given is "general agreement" or "collective opinion". You can lean on which ever flavor of the cited usages support your POV, can you not? (And you do.) So, you would have me accept that as long as there is disagreement there is no consensus? If so, state that here, in writing. If not, state that as well. Make yourself clear on this point, please.Tanya~talk page 23:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to WLU: Please stop posting replies if you do not expect me to reply in turn. Since the questions were raised, here is my reply. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are they good? Well, obviously. So go get some. Also, just because something isn't ideal doesn't mean that it has no value. It just means that it could be better, and on this point, regarding the data associated with DID, whether it be treatment outcome, etiology, or epidemiology, there is little if any dispute in professional circles. As for your 3rd point on systematic reviews... The ISSTD guidelines do indeed encompass a literature review, but that is not its central purpose, which is to issue an updated set of official treatment guidelines, coming from the group of well known and highly respected clinicians who authored the document. The lit. review is there to provide basis for major portions of the guidelines, and occupies 16 1/4 pages - 20.5% of the document. At about 18 references per page, that a total of over 290 references. In what way do you find this deficient? How do you know there are no randomized studies in this set of 290 references? Can you provide, say, a table which lists each study in the reference list (they aren't all research studies, so you'll not have 290 rows in your table!), and the sample selection method used, when indeed it is a sample-based study? If you can't, you have no basis for that statement. But, far more important is this: Colin Ross is a psychiatrist who I'm sure I don't need to introduce to you, but for others - he has a large number of publications on dissociative disorders and has been treating DID in inpatient and outpatient settings since 1979, is a member of ISSTD, is cited 10 times in the ISSTD Treatment Guidelines document, is a co-author of that document, and has a chapter in Dell and O'Neil's ISSTD-commissioned 2009 review of the field - Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders (864 pp.). In his 2009 book (co-authored by N. Halpern), Trauma Model Therapy (pp. 63-63), he has outlined the characteristics of an ideal outcome study (be it for psychotherapy or medication). These would surely also be applicable to studies of etiology, as well. The characteristics are these: sample selection is randomized; data are gathered prospectively - starting at one point and moving through time to an end point; double-blind - no one, including the professionals involved, knows who is getting treatment who is getting pseudo-treatment or placebo; placebo-controlled - some subjects get "fake" treatment. He then lists a number of additional features of a quality study, including such things as appropriate and adequate statistical analysis, replicability, and so on. Now comes the important part: These standards are hard to meet in psychotherapy studies, and especially so when DID is involved, he asserts. He reports that most study subjects are able to figure out when they are getting placebo treatment. Furthermore, studies on DID treatment outcome are atypical, compared to other disorders, because the course of treatment is typically years (at least 5, he reports elsewhere in this book). This is a problem in a study for several reasons: it hard to retain study subjects for that long (it is not unusual for people with DID to have years of therapy, but from multiple therapists). It is unethical to determine that a subject qualifies for treatment, and thus is in need, but then withhold it for the presumed lengthy period that would be required for a DID study. Finally, getting funding for a study of this length and difficulty is itself a major hurdle. I would add that any prospective study of etiology would require either deliberate traumatizing of subjects, followed by non-treatment for years, or identification of already-traumatized subjects, followed by non-treatment years. Care to apply for funding for a study of that sort? Conclusion: We are not at any time in the immediate future likely to have any data for DID etiology and treatment outcome which is not retrospective, non-blinded, unrandomized, and lacking a placebo treatment condition. It is just not reasonable. He concludes (p. 65): "One can read the entire psychiatric literature and find almost no treatment outcome or follow-up data on complicated, highly co-morbid psychiatric inpatients. Most people with DID have been inpatients at some time, or been suicidal at some time, and all have other Axis I disorders and addictions. The treatment outcome data for DID are as strong as any other body of data for any treatment method involving highly comorbid patients." So stop asking for the impossible Sir. Tanya~talk page 00:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Three links to a document I am already quite aware of and a large wall of text. Please see WP:TLDR. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
How about we concentrate on the article instead of trying to constantly get me to write in your preferred manner. That is simply deflection. The problem at hand is the article. Deflection or a "thought-terminating cliché": "...is to ignore the reasoned and actually quite clear arguments and requests for response..." Tanya~talk page 16:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

ISSTD guidelines

The ISSTD guidelines contain the following warning at the beginning:

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions



This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.[1]

MathewTownsend (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh, amusing - probably to avoid the counter-suits by parents against therapists and former patients suing former therapists. Although it's weird to see them essentially say "don't use this for real therapy". I'm still inclined to say it is a reliable source, perhaps phrased in terms of "The ISSTD says..." It sure would be nice to see a document assessing the ISSTD as a scientific and/or advocacy organization. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The ISSTD has some very specific things to say about how to do therapy - in their Guidelines document, which is obviously downloadable from the site. "Don't use this for therapy"? They are saying quite the opposite. They tell us how to use the research-based stuff on their site and in the literature. WLU, you have it completely wrong. Tanya~talk page 18:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
well, obviously the more specific their recommendations are, the more they have to warn people that their recommendations may be out of date or inaccurate, etc. Most review articles don't make recommendations but objectively review the research, so no warning needed. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Why do we keep talking on this talk page when all 3 of us have agreed we need to wait and bringing up new issues when the important issues above have not been addressed is a huge problem. Tanya~talk page 18:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Personality state?

The opening sentence says DID is characterized by "dissociated personality states", but that term is not explained here nor is it linked to an explanatory article. Since it isn't obvious to lay persons (like me) what a "personality state" is (or a dissociated one for that matter), the sentence fails to inform. Lambtron (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point and welcome to the page. It's nice to see a new editor here! Wow you are a dancer! I love that! Tanya~talk page 14:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This is why I originally supported an exact quote from the DSM, the terms lack a widely-accepted definition. I would support going back to the DSM definition quote since, even if it isn't exact, at least has authority. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it does not need to go back to what you had. It simply needs to be defined. This article is a bunch of political mumbo jumbo instead of explaining what DID is. This is the problem. Tanya~talk page 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
What reliable source do you suggest to verify a generally-agreed upon definition or explanation? There's an entire section on how the terms used aren't defined, making any effort complicated. In addition, the lead must of necessity be brief, making it hard to adequately reflect the disagreements and nuances of the body and literature on DID in general. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not playing your defection games. This does not need to be discussed until the peer reviewer has returned and caught up. Please just stop. Tanya~talk page 16:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm merely a dance aficionado (not even a dancer) and I know nothing about DID except what I've read in this article, but it's clear to me that valid concerns have been raised by both Tanya and WLU, and the intro must account for those collective concerns. I see that both editors are acting in good faith and both share the common goal of improving this article, but they have somehow lost sight of their unity. Please listen to each other and strive to work in harmony; you have so much potential as collaborators! It will be easy to resolve the article's problems when you stand together on common ground and work this out in a positive way. Okay, enough proselytizing already. I don't know how to rewrite the intro, but it must (1) be based on reliable sources, and (2) be explained so that I can understand it. Perhaps that can be done with some combination of layman's explanation and authoritative definition? Also, a simple example would go a long way toward explaining this to readers like me. Lambtron (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would love to be able to do this, but almost anything I edit gets deleted or reverted by WLU. So far it has been an impossible task. I have not even tried to edit for a while. It's hopeless right now as things are. Tanya~talk page 18:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
If we had a simple explanation, we'd probably use it - and therein lies the rub. DID is an unusually acrimonious field, there's not a lot of research, and again - core terms are undefined or taken for granted. I'm not being baiting when I say there's no generally accepted definition to draw upon, DID touches on the very sense of self, awareness, memory and consciousness that is the essence of being human or using the word "I". It's hard to even talk about things like this, let alone define or study it. Should we use "personality"? How is that different from "identity"? Or "ego state"? One source noted difficulty with the definition of "amnesia", which you would think would be simple! I gather that if anyone finds a source that defines any of these terms, I could probably find a source that either defines it in a different way or disagrees with the first. And again, therein lies the rub. I added some wikilinks recently to the definitions section, and trying to figure out what link to use in a disambiguation page with two or three different possibilities within a single discipline of psychology was challenging. I dare say any one of those links could be challenged and I would concede that I may have used the wrong one. I wish I could provide a more reasonable and understandable definition or term, but I'm at a loss. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the intro paragraph seems reasonable and understandable except for a couple of things. First, I have no idea what "dissociated personality states" are. Is there a formal definition for that term? Is it the same as having two or more "identities" and, if so, isn't it redundant? On the other hand, the term doesn't belong here if it defies definition, even if coined by a reliable source. If the term stays, it needs to be explained. The other problem is the third sentence, which sounds like advice to a medical practitioner ("Malingering should be ruled out if..."). Lambtron (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had an answer...my best response is still only to suggest a direct quote from the DSM, but the only thing that adds is authority and a lack of the term "dissociated". There's no formal definition I'm aware of, perhaps others can enlighten the discussion with sources. The fact that the DSM itself uses two terms with an "or" in between suggests the previous working group is aware of the issue but couldn't address it.
The malingering point reads OK to me, but I'm open to alternative wordings. Do you think "Malingering can be a concern..." is better? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's how I would explain DID to a layperson; it's based on the current intro paragraph and the straightforward description at nami.org. It sums up DID in a nutshell, it's completely understandable to laypersons (this one, anyway), and it avoids jargon and details that are better suited to subsequent paragraphs. I would like to propose this (or something similar) as a replacement for the current intro, for the benefit of general readers.

Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), also known as Multiple Personality Disorder, is a mental disorder in which two or more distinct identities (or personality states) control a person's behavior at different times. When under the control of one identity, the person is usually unable to remember some of the events that occurred while another identity was in control. The different identities, referred to as alters, may exhibit differences in speech, mannerisms, attitudes, thoughts, and gender orientation. These symptoms are not accounted for by substance abuse, fantasy behavior, or seizures or other medical conditions, nor are they motivated by potential financial or forensic gain (malingering) or artifacts of help-seeking behavior (factitious disorder). Diagnosis can be difficult as DID sometimes coexists with other mental disorders.

Comments? Lambtron (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Yes, I totally agree with you Lambtron! Look at Merek, it has a good description as well. Check out the peer review page for more issue that could use your help. Warmest welcome to the DID page! :) Tanya ✫♫♥ 15:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Dissociative identity disorder and multiple personality disorder should not be capitalized. "Fantasy behaviour" is specific to children as well I believe. I assume you mean this to replace the first paragraph, not the whole lead? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I also like that the Lambtron's paragraph does not confuse the subject by putting rule-outs in the introduction. Tanya ✫♫♥ 16:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Re: "referred to as alters" - some refer to these different identities as "alters" and some don't. There are also a variety of other terms used. This is a "proposed term" according to the article text that has a citation. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Staying with one term throughout the page, such as the term the DSM uses, being personality states is ideal. Personality states need to be defined up front however since this page is for the average reader and it should not just be assumed that they know what it means. Tanya ✫♫♥ 17:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Lambtron I believe is correct. In the DSM IV it is standard practice to always capitalize the names of disorders. They are proper names. Tanya ✫♫♥ 17:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I made them caps, but Mathew reverted my edit. What is your reasoning Mathew? If this is standard for WP, it's cool, but as I pointed out - it's standard for the DSM IV to use caps. Tanya ✫♫♥ 18:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposed paragraph would replace only the first paragraph. Unless fantasy behavior can account for DID in adults, there's no need to mention children here; that detail belongs in later paragraphs. How about this:

Dissociative identity disorder (DID), also known as multiple personality disorder, is a mental disorder in which two or more distinct identities (or personality states) control a person's behavior at different times. When under the control of one identity, the person is usually unable to remember some of the events that occurred while another identity was in control. The different identities may exhibit differences in speech, mannerisms, attitudes, thoughts, and gender orientation. These symptoms are not accounted for by substance abuse, fantasy behavior, or seizures or other medical conditions, nor are they motivated by potential financial or forensic gain (malingering) or artifacts of help-seeking behavior (factitious disorder). Diagnosis can be difficult as DID sometimes coexists with other mental disorders.
I love it, but wonder if it's necessary to add this section in the lede of the article. "These symptoms are not accounted for by substance abuse, fantasy behavior, or seizures or other medical conditions, nor are they motivated by potential financial or forensic gain (malingering) or artifacts of help-seeking behavior (factitious disorder)."
Thoughts? Tanya ✫♫♥ 18:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a good question. I thought about eliminating it but realized that it contributes to my basic layman's understanding of this topic. I'm inclined to keep it but will defer to your judgement on the matter. Lambtron (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Appears to copy/paste or close paraphrasing too much from the lead of Dissociative Identity Disorder According to the Dup Detector, these are copied:
  • behavior at different times when under the control of one identity the person is usually unable to remember some of the events that occurred while (25 words, 146 characters)
  • occurred while another identity was in control the different identities referred to as alters may exhibit differences in speech mannerisms attitudes thoughts and gender orientation these symptoms are not accounted (20 words, 144 characters)
Could you check this out and make sure no copy/paste or close paraphrasing is there? Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This paragraph needs work, but it should eliminate the problem above:

Dissociative identity disorder (DID), also known as multiple personality disorder in the ICD-10 [1], is a psychiatric diagnosis where at least two personality states alter control. These states routinely control behavior, and are often limited to state dependent memory. These symptoms are not accounted for by substance abuse, seizures or other medical conditions, nor are they motivated by malingering or factitious disorder. Diagnosis can be difficult as DID sometimes coexists with other mental disorders. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 19:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


Here's my simplified, paraphrased, layman's version.:

Dissociative identity disorder (DID), also known as multiple personality disorder, is a mental disorder in which a person's behavior is controlled by two or more alternating, distinct identities (or "personality states"), with one identity in control at any given time. Typically, the affected person cannot remember some of the events that transpired while under the control of a different identity. An identity change can manifest in various ways, including changes in attitude and thoughts, speech, physical mannerisms, and gender orientation. DID symptoms are not accounted for by substance abuse, fantasy behavior, help-seeking behavior (factitious disorder), seizures or other medical conditions, or potential financial or forensic gain (malingering). Diagnosis can be difficult as DID sometimes coexists with other mental disorders.

Comments? Lambtron (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Typically, the affected person cannot remember some of the events that transpired while under the control of a different identity."
I suggest instead: Often, the main personality state cannot remember events that transpired while under the control of another personality state.
Why - All personality states together make up the person's personality. Some personality states (in those with DID) have coconsciousnesses (it's as if one state is out and the other is watching - which can also occur in DDNOS). To have DID, according the the DSM, there must be at least one personality state that takes over resulting in total memory loss for the part that is normally in executive control (host). Excellent job! I am so glad you are here! This is really a great way to make sure everyone understands this stuff! :) Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 21:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Forgive me for repeating myself, but discussing DID in terms of "personality states" is problematic for me. I have no idea what a personality state is and frankly, it seems that no one can say with authority what it is. I googled it and immediately found two different definitions, but I couldn't find a reliable source for either one. It's unhelpful to define DID in terms of undefined jargon, even if that jargon is used by reliable sources. I do have a sense of what "identity" means, though, and I'm guessing that trait is common to other laypersons. I realize you are striving for technical accuracy, but why not make the intro comprehensible to laypersons and reserve extensive use of "personality states" (and its definitions) and other clinical jargon for in-depth, later paragraphs? Lambtron (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "personality states" is the term used by the American Medical Association (AMA) that defines what DID is. The fact that you can't find a reliable source (outside the AMA) means that you will have to engage in original research if you want to come up with other wording. And original research is not allowed on WP. Anything you write for this article must be verifiable and follow reliable sources for medical articles.
Also, please follow WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." Therefore, it works better if the article is written before too much energy is put into writing the lead. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Reply to Lambtron: Identity is okay, but still confusing once people grasp of what DID is. The DSM does use the term identity as well as personality state, but the problem is that lay people can confuse what it actually means. I think it would be good to define which ever term is chosen. I vote for personality state because that is what it is - simply the parts or states that make up the personality.
Such as: Those with DID have traumatized and dissociated parts which are commonly called (alters/ identities/personality states). The only disorder with alters is DID. Each alter is a fragment of self - or often thought of as split from the self. No part is a complete self, even though each part might feel as if it is. All (alters, personality states, identities) exist to protect the whole system - the person and their sense of their-self, howsoever fragmented. This is a key axiom of how personality systems work.Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 22:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to change the lead to capitalize Dissociative Identity Disorder. We are bound by the manual of style, not the APA's style, unless there is a direct quote.
Personality states is, as far as I've seen, both undefined and not universally used. I don't know what alternative exists, so most sources stick with mealy-mouthed pornography-type definitions ("I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it") which are imprecise. My preferences would be to simply use "personalities" or "identities" actually, unless we go with a direct quote. I don't think "personality states" adds anything to the page; it's not generally accepted, it's not defined, and I don't think it helps any laypeople understand the page any better than just "personality" or identity. The lead isn't the place to hash this out, and since the whole concept is undefined and vague, I don't know if we lose much by sticking with a more casual term or terms.
As Mathew points out, we need to be careful of copyright violations unless there is direct attribution - and if we're going that route, I still think the DSM is the book to quote. Mathew, do you mean the AMA, or the APA (who authors the DSM)?
Regarding the statement "Diagnosis can be difficult as DID sometimes coexists with other mental disorders", this seems to muddy comorbidity (which coexists with DID) and misdiagnosis or differential diagnosis. When there is comorbidity, it is important to separately identify which diagnoses coexist (for instance, DID often coexists with anxiety disorders). However, schizophrenia is not often comorbid with DID, but careful differential diagnosis must occur to distinguish their superficially common symptoms (such as hearing voices) from distinct underlying pathology. In addition, borderline personality disorder has been proposed as being part of the continuum or substitution for DID (though I don't think this needs to be in the lead).
I don't know if the lead is the place to shoehorn in interidentity amnesia. Hard to do well, and perhaps not necessary.
The statement "Those with DID have traumatized and dissociated parts" shouldn't be in the lead since it assumes trauma and dissociation far too much given the controversy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
you're right WLU. It's the American Psychiatric Association (APA). They made up the definition and its the recognized definition for insurance companies, mental health practitioners, drug companies etc. There is no other generally recognized definition. This article is about the DSM diagnosis. The MOS for medicine-related articles contains a list of suggested section headings, as WLU indicates above.
For those who don't want to follow the WP rules for writing medical articles, why not write another article defining what you think this condition should be called, titled as such, and put in it what you think should go in it. This article has 77 mostly journal review articles as reliable sources for medical articles specifies that support the statements made in the article. (Books are allowed if they are peer reviewed and not just one "expert" pushing his or her views, unless the article context makes clear that the view put forth is per that author.) The lead should summarize the article, and not go off in its own direction. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

WLU: Sir, this is why we need to settle the argument of if the SGM should be in more than a controversy paragraph, rather than intertwined. This is what confuses the lay people - writing this paper like it is a war when it is not. Howell E. (2011). Understanding and Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415994969.There is an expert consensus that we need to report, rather than fringe ideas. If what we want to present is inaccuracies and fringe ideas, then the DID page is already done - the paper is loaded with fringe opinions. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 23:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WLU: There is no such thing as personalities. All people, DID or not have many parts that make up their one personality. Talk about confusing the lay person. "Personalties" - as in ability to have more than one is a pop culture idea or really old information. Howell E. (2011). Understanding and Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415994969.Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 23:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the work of new editors to the page

Mathew - please state why you are reverting the edits of a new editor that has joined us. You said you stepped down from working on this page, and now a new editor wants to work you are here doing what WLU has always done - reverting any work she tries to do. I have not looked in detail at what you are reverting, but on the talk page she was making sense. Please explain why you are doing this. Tanya (t) 15:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

For the same reason Casliber gave on the same user's talk page.[2]:
"DancingPhilosopher, the standard way to add content to medical articles is to build up a section in the body of the text before adding to the lead. I'd also advise ensuring that there are secondary sources (i.e. Review Articles) supporting the material. Medical articles are generally held more strictly to sourcing guidelines due to the enormous amount of primary source material of widely varying quality. Any questions, just ask. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)"
That is the reason Tylas. Do you think Casliber is wrong? If so, please explain to Casliber that he is wrong, as I follow Casliber's advice as he is an expert. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you should explain to this new editor to the DID page what you are doing before just going in and revert her edits. I have said nothing about Casliber. I try not to page stalk and had not looked at her page and had not a clue in the world what you are doing or talking about. You are just assuming I have. You need to communicate before acting - please. Tanya (t) 15:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I did. I posted on his talk page:
"Please don't make major changes in this very controversial article without discussing on the talk page first. The article is in peer review so you can also enter comments there also.
"Also, you added content to the lead that wasn't discussed in the body of the article and wasn't sourced per reliable sources for medical articles. To quote Casliber from his post to you above about your additions to the Dissociative identity disorder article:[3] "the standard way to add content to medical articles is to build up a section in the body of the text before adding to the lead. I'd also advise ensuring that there are secondary sources (i.e. Review Articles) supporting the material. Medical articles are generally held more strictly to sourcing guidelines due to the enormous amount of primary source material of widely varying quality."
  • His reply was:
"Your objection is a straw man
Your objection to the edits done by me to the article on DID simply does not apply. Why? Because my edits were limited, firstly, to the meta-medical, e.g. methodological issues solely, and, secondly, to the fact that those issues are ignored because of the role of the legal etc uses, as acknowledged also in DSM article (even before I made edits to the latter, too)... To conclude - my edits were not about medical content at all.
The above meta-medical fact (that there are serious unresolved methodological issues) is NOT, and I repeat NOT, controversial. On the contrary, the meta-medical debate is completely independent from the medical debate.
Summa summarum: your objection is a straw man."
  • Do you agree with him, Tylas? And do you agree with his addition to the first paragraph of the lead:
There is a significant scientific debate about the relative validity of a "categorical" versus a "dimensional" system of classification, as well as significant controversy about the role of the professional, legal, and social uses to which they are put.
  • Do you agree that this addition improves the first paragraph of the lead? If so, perhaps you can provide sources and add an explanation to the body of the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Who is his? Did Casliper actually post on her talk page or is it you trying to use his name. This is all a mess of confusion. Please edit your text so it makes sense. I am lost here. Also, I am not saying I agree or disagree. The entire article is a political mess instead of a medical page about DID. Please don't try and muddle the issues with trying to nail me down to a minor point when there are massive problems with this article and the first thing to confront before again burying the issue is what the expert consensus for DID is. The real world already has decided, but once WP editors can catch up with that, then we can move forward with improving the article. Tanya (t) 16:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know who this person is that you're defending. If you actually read what I wrote (and click on the diff[4] provided, you'll see that Casliber did indeed post on his talk page, quoted below in case you don't click diffs:
DancingPhilosopher, the standard way to add content to medical articles is to build up a section in the body of the text before adding to the lead. I'd also advise ensuring that there are secondary sources (i.e. Review Articles) supporting the material. Medical articles are generally held more strictly to sourcing guidelines due to the enormous amount of primary source material of widely varying quality. Any questions, just ask. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
But of course you are free to defend DancingPhilosoper's addition to the page, even if Casliber disagrees with you both. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
You are totally changing my words. I have not even looks at her additions to the page and never said I have. I said what you posted here is a mess and I can't tell who is saying what. Again, I am not saying she is right or wrong. You again are trying to diffuse the real issue which is that the DID page is a disaster and it does not explain the mainstream expert consensus of DID. Tanya (t) 16:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, you said: "Mathew - please state why you are reverting the edits of a new editor that has joined us." ok, I tried to explain. You didn't understand, so I explained more. I'm not going to explain any more why I thought his edits were inappropriate and why I reverted them.

You said: "I think you should explain to this new editor to the DID page what you are doing before just going in and revert her edits." ok, I showed you that I did explain and that Casliber did also. End of story. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mathew - You say "his reply" but are talking about 2 different people. I think that is "her reply" as in DancingPhilosopers. I was asking you to make it clear who is saying what in your copy and pasting from DancingPhilosphers page, because it is not clear. She is a she. Enough. Never mind. I will go to her page and figure it out. Tanya (t) 16:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The sentence in question was unsourced, which means it can be removed by anybody. In addition, it was substantially a criticism of the DSM and its ratings or measurement scale (or possibly measurement scales in general) and wasn't directly related to DID, the actual topic of the page itself. If there is a source that links criticisms of the scales used by the DSM to DID and why that's relevant, that level of detail can go in the body; unless there is a massive and apparent controversy about how the DSM's categorical rating system affects DID and DID diagnoses, it doesn't belong in the lead as it's far, far, far too specific.
Assume good faith means we assume that the editor in question isn't editing to harm wikipedia; that is, they are not vandalizing. It doesn't mean we need to put up with bad edits that don't comply with policies and guidelines like WP:V, WP:LEAD and WP:OR. This isn't worth discussing really, the edit didn't add anything of merit to the page and it was a fairly obvious coatrack of unrelated issues. Until, at minimum, a source can be found to veirfy this "meta-methodological issue" applying to DID, it shouldn't be replaced. And even then, I will be very intrigued to see a rational for why anyone would defend that edit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarity for the Lede

Here is a paragraph that should agree with everyone's arguments.

Dissociative identity disorder (DID), also known as multiple personality disorder in the ICD-10, is a psychiatric diagnosis in which at least two personality states (fragments of the personality) switch back and forth with state dependent memory (amnesia between the two personality states) resulting in each part having their own memories. Everyone has personality states which together form the personality, but those with DID have "dissociated" personality states which, due to the amnesic boundary and thus lack of communication with other personality states, can feel they are a sole identity rather than a group of personality states working together which is the case in the normal brain. Due to lack of training by some therapists a diagnosis can be difficult as DID does often coexists with other mental disorders - PTSD in particular. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 14:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Rise and Shine! It's peer review time!

Our guy "Cryptic C62, also known as Ryan Malloy" is back and at work. Just a heads up to everyone that is watching. Let's get this done! I am excited to work on it! :) Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 14:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP Article - Diagnosis - 2nd paragraph There were changes to this paragraph, some suggested by Ryan, others by me as I read it. Since this paragraph is being looked at, let's look at it closer.

1st sentence

"The diagnosis has been criticized as proponents of the iatrogenic or sociocognitive hypothesis believe it as a culture-bound and often iatrogenic condition which they think is in decline."

References used to verify this first sentence:

[12] Piper and Merkey (2004) This is too old to use for this article, as we have agreed in the past to use information that is current - 5 years old or less as suggested by Doc James. [33] Piper and Mersky - part II of same article listed above. (2004) Again, this is too old

[27] Boysen (2011) Boysen does not say this in his abstract or conclusion, and really the study has nothing to do with the statement made above.

Boysen looked at published studies in the 1980's and 1990's. Boysen's exact words: "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."

Boysen's actual 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." Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 14:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Piper and Merskey's papers could be seen as classic articles presenting criticisms of DID that have not been refuted yet. I would suggest bringing it up at the RSN or WT:MED
Boysen's summary of the DID debate is a partial verification of this statement, and his literature review isn't limited to just children so it applies to DID overall. Most of the article is in fact a summary of the knowledge to date in order to see which model is best supported, and neither wins. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Piper and Merkey then should be used only in the history section of this article. If something was still relevant in science today, it would still be addressed. If it is no longer, then the use of the article would be historic. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 17:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, though the fact that they are still cited when the topic comes up suggests they still have something. As Boysen says, many of the core issues haven't been addressed. I think both papers should continue to be used, but newer research and publications seem to be making similar points. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course you do Sir. Piper and Merskey are 2 of the people out there that support your fringe/minority POV. I would expect you to want to keep anything from them you can get hold of. As I have said before, quoting an introduction to a paper is simply misleading and it keeps being used to show support for an idea where the paper in fact is totally against that idea. We all need to quote a summary or conclusion - not cherry picking one small section from an introduction. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

2nd Sentence in this paragraph

Other researchers disagree and argue that the condition is real and its inclusion in the DSM is supported by reliable and convergent evidence.

[13] Cardena E; Gleaves DH (2007). "Dissociative Disorders". In Hersen M; Turner SM; Beidel DC. Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis. The reference has us read the entire chapter 13 about dissociative disorders in general. Cardna and Gleaves (2007) Textbook. 5 years old. Acceptable. pg 473 - 482 are online - at least using the link on the WP page. The reference given is pages 473 to 503, which is far too broad.

What Cardena and Gleaves actually say is fascinating, but it is not about DID at least the part we can read online. It is about dissociative disorders in general. I would love to read the rest of the book - which probably goes into DID rather thoroughly, but it would certainly be beyond page 482. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 15:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that the updated version of the book chapter is not written by Cardena; when I have the time I'd like to replace, where appropriate, Cardena with Lynn. The citation is to an entire chapter, which is akin to citing an entire peer reviewed article. I've replaced and reworded the sentence with a hopefully more readable summary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
WLU's rewrite on sentence 2: "Other researchers disagree and argue that the existence of the condition and its inclusion in the DSM is supported by multiple lines of reliable evidence, with diagnostic criteria allowing it to be clearly discriminated from conditions it is often mistaken for (schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, and seizure disorder)."[13]
I found the part of the text that looked familiar. It's from the ISSTD guidelines - the top of page 124. "A number of lines of evidence support the trauma model for DID over the SCM." Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 12:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
What page in reference [13] did you find this Sir? This is confusing still and I would like to see the context that this refers since the reason that DID can be mistaken for schizophrenia, borderline and seizure disorders is therapist/doctor error - at least from the literature that I have read and can cite The tools and training exist so that DID is not hard to Dx. This is what should be reported here rather than controversy. I would think that the 2011 ISSTD Treatment guidelines authored by many experts in the field of DID - would in fact be the best reference to use here or another citation that pertains to current treatment of DID in the year 2012. (p.123) pdf file or perhaps in this case since the ISSTD reference will be used many other places in the article we should use Dell and O'Neil's giant book "Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders:: DSM-V and Beyond" that was explicitly written for exactly that purpose - to be the best reference out there on this topic.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 17:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't know. What's confusing about it? I don't object to the ISSTD's guidelines being cited here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
"Other researchers disagree" - It's actually the (p.123) majority of experts and the expert consensus that argue that there are 3 models that should be used, and none are the SCM.
"and argue that the existence of the condition and its inclusion in the DSM is supported by multiple lines of reliable evidence," "multiple lines - is that not that taken directly out of the ISSTD guidelines. I have read it there. I will find the page. If used it needs to copy less and paraphrase better. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 18:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The last line is not horrible, but it's still confusing and misleading. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 18:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is a quote from the ISSTD guidelines that will clarify what I mean about the last sentence. * "Accurate clinical diagnosis affords early and appropriate treatment for the dissociative disorders. The difficulties in diagnosing DID result primarily from lack of education among clinicians about dissociation, dissociative disorders, and the effects of psychological trauma, as well as from clinician bias. This leads to limited clinical suspicion about dissociative disorders and misconceptions about their clinical presentation." (p.117) pdf file
Also: * "Moreover, because most clinicians receive little or no training in dissociation and DID, they have difficulty recognizing the signs and symptoms of DID even when they occur spontaneously." (p.118) pdf file
I don't see where on page 123 it says the majority of experts. Feel free to supplement or replace Cardena with the ISSTD guidelines. The argument that DID diagnoses are clusted due to (lack of) training and (in)experience should be noted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Cardena and Gleaves reference is the one that Doc James gave us to work, but the link on the WP DID page, reference [13] does not go to the section of the book on DID, as I said it just goes to the section on DD and then quits. I will see if I can find the original link that Doc James gave. This is an excellent references. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure Doc James would approve of using the Lynn 2012 reference, since it's the updated version of Cardena & Gleaves. As for the rest of this, we both know each others' questions and answers, so there's no point in continuing to repeat myself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

there is no actual research for the SCM (p.124)

It's going to be hard to say you have an expert consensus when the fact is that ..."there is no actual research that shows that the complex phenomenology of DID can be created, let alone sustained over time, by suggestion, contagion, or hypnosis." (p.124) pdf file There are 2 groups. One that believes in the minority/fringe POV I just listed that has no research to back it up and the 3 models presented by the ISSTD that are mainstream - as you can see at Merck. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 19:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the words "According to the ISSTD" in your statement, and putting it in illustrates the flaw.
You can keep repeating the fact that you believe the SCM is the minority or fringe position, and I will keep repeating that this is your opinion and not one backed by anything remotely reliable. You are mistaking sources you agree with, with sources that are reliable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Then by all means - present your research. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

3rd and last sentence in this paragraph

"That a large proportion of cases are diagnosed by specific clinicians suggests to some that either those clinicians are indeed responsible for the iatrogenic creation of alters or there is a high rate of false positives due to subjective diagnostic criteria, though proponents of the traumagenic hypothesis believe there are valid and objective diagnostic criteria to identify individuals with DID."

[27] Boysen, GA (2011). "The scientific status of childhood dissociative identity disorder: a review of published research". The same reference we discussed above. What does this reference have to do with anything in the last sentence of this paragraph?

Again, remember Boysen was looking at literature on children diagnosed with DID in the 80's and 90's. Boysen's conclusion in that study: "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." Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 15:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This does need a better reference, Boysen's article on children is speaking specifically about children regarding these points (which should probably be replaced elsewhere). Lynn 2012 verifies a modified version of this point, so I've replaced the citation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The link takes me to a page that does not exist - at least online and at that link. If Lynn was a good reference, then we still need at least one more as suggested by our peer reviewer. In this case I would say we still need 2 references.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 17:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Fringe/Minority With all the researchers out there that are considered to be experts in this field, why would we use references about mainstream DID from one of the few fringe SCM researchers - Lynn? Lynn should not be used unless citing a controversial line. Lilienfeld also comes to mind since he and Lynn are two of the biggest professional conservatives in all of psychology. These people are classic fringe/minority. They are not clinical psychologists. They are universally critical of much of clinical psych. They howled about EMDR for years. No one pays them any attention, for the most part, 'cause they themselves clearly cherry pick their references.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 18:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I just re-read the page, it's there - pages 516-7. As a university-level textbook, it's pretty solid.
I don't think Lynn (and his six co-authors of the chapter) is a "fringe" researcher. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Link to that please. Sir, it does not matter what you think. It matters what the mainstream consensus of those who study DID think. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 18:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You've never documented that the ISSTD is the mainstream consensus, despite repeated requests to do so. So no. A university level textbook published by a mainstream scholarly publisher can be assumed more neutral than a document published by a partisan agency that explicitly adopts one side of a scholarly disagreement. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Again there are many University level text books to choose from, there is only one organization that is the sole professional association in psychology for those who treat and research dissociative disorders. Show me where in this text book it says that the 2 views are equal. That is not going to be found anywhere, simply because it is not true, but do show me please. Support your statement. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to mainstream consensus again

I have given argument after argument. I have showed that the ISSTD is the mainstream consensus and this is simply what is accepted in the field of DID. For this argument peer reviewer: please see my talk page where it took place. WLU, please show me anything that says the ISSTD is not the mainstream consensus or any other group that is considered to be. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 19:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat the last questions that remain unanswered on my talk page:Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 19:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your claims about the ISSTD being mainstream have been addressed multiple times, but you refuse to acknowledge this. Repeating it further doesn't make your point any more convincing, but it does make it tendentious. You haven't convinced anybody so far. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Your tactic to argue that the SCM is a alternative to the consensus and therefore deserves equivalent status in the article does not reflect the view in any edition of the DSM, nor in any edition of the Merck Manual, nor in any major medical textbook. The SCM people have no data to support their position. That doesn't make them important; it makes them part of the tendentious fringe in psychiatry. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Show me the evidence that the SCM is accepted by mainstream expert consensus

Reply - Show me what evidence you have that the the SCM is accepted by the mainstream consensus of experts please. Your argument does not appear rational to me. Show me your evidence. I do not believe there is any, and what happens in that case historically, is that the minority/fringe POV falters and fades with no actual demonstrable truth or research to back it up. The expert consensus, on the other hand, is simply able to do more, and thus the culture as a whole listens to them. That is how these battles are won. I have complete faith in that - even on WP.

Reply - Writing for the enemy - What I say keeps getting lost in all the banter - I do not see the SCM as the enemy. It simply has no research to support the opinions presented. I do not care how DID is caused. I only care that the correct information is presented. I have never argued against having a paragraph in the DID article about the minority POV's concerning DID, what I argue is having minority/fringe POV's presented as equal to the mainstream expert consensus. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 14:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Next - the problem with this is that there are all kinds of University level text books that say the same thing. I maintain that using anything by a fringe/minority person is an overall problem. Doc James suggested a textbook we can use if we are going to quote textbooks. Also, could you find a working url to this text so that I can read it please. The url Doc James gave for a University level text works great. I will dig it up.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please show me anything that indicates the ISSTD is the mainstream consensus. The large number of sourcse that seriously discuss the SCM argues against it being an unsupported fringe position. To edit fruitfully you may have to realize the ISSTD may not be considered the mainstream organization you think it is, and may not represent what all or most scholars think about DID. For that matter, the fact that the ISSTD's own documents argue DID is missed by most clinicians due to skepticism and lack of training suggests it is not the mainstream position. If it was, these DID cases wouldn't be missed - they'd be recognized. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The average Joe does not understand the same things that the experts in any field do. It takes time to educate the masses, but in the meantime, reporting fringe stuff just adds to the problem. WP's job is to report the mainstream expert consensus. Not to treat a fringe/minority as if it is equal. Again I have no problem with there being a paragraph in the article on the fringe/minority POV's. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
This is an old argument already covered on my talk page and you are avoiding my question: Show me what evidence you have that the the SCM is accepted by the mainstream consensus of experts please. Answer it directly please. For you to edit fruitfully you may have to realize that the SCM is a fringe/minority POV. There is the minority that supports the SCM and the rest of the people that study DID may or may not be in the ISSTD, I have no idea, but they do support the findings of the ISSTD. Again see Merck for what is considered in 2012 as the mainstream thoughts on DID.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 19:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not avoiding your question, I'm indicating that we are both in the same position - neither one of us can demonstrate unequivocally that one position is mainstream and the other is not. I can't prove that one position is mainstream, and neither can you.
You are citing the 2008 Merck manual to support the 2012 mainstream thought. Allow me to instead point to a 2012 source that is far more detailed, nuanced and authoritative.
Repeating "minority" doesn't make a position an actual minority. I get it, you think the SCM is the majority opinion. I disagree. We both have reliable sources that describe both positions, so let's move on rather than you repeating a personal belief as if it were an unambiguous fact. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, I will let our peer reviewer decided, not you. It is you Sir who is being tendentious in refusing to accept the obvious and who wants to present the WP DID article as if DID is a battle when it is not and who has ran off anyone in the past that has disagreed with your extreme POV. The ISSTD is the sole organization of its type in the field. It has no competition. If there is an alternative to the ISSTD, where is it? I keep asking the question and you keep dodging it. If there are not enough people to form a group, then you have simply a few eccentrics, versus the main body of organized professionals. The ISSTD's Guideline statement expresses the consensus of the ISSTD - the sole professional association in psychology for those who treat and research dissociative disorders. If you wish to assert that a handful of detractors, publishing in non-clinical journals, are equal in stature to this professional association, then please cite a source to back it up, or come forward with a competing consensus statement. An unbiased reader, seeing the statement from this major professional association can, and will, draw the obvious conclusion. Also, WLU - you still have not given me or, anyone here reading this a working link, to this book you are talking about. If it is the one I am thinking of, it in no way treats SCM and trauma theory the same, even though Lynn is one of the authors. As long as words are not cherry picked from it, then it should be a good reference, however I would like to see it first.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The same things happens with all difficult diseases. Specialist professionals make most of the specialist diagnoses, in good part because non-specialists refer to them (and client/patients self-refer), knowing that if the diagnosis is to be made the specialist will do it right. All health care works this way. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 00:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


Reply to WLU: I am drawing from mainstream consensus documents. As for the question of weight to be given to the SCM, the APA (in the DSM) [reference] and the ISSTD give at the most passing mention to the SCM. The ISSTD document explicitly states that there is no empirical research for the SCM. pdf file (p.124)

Reply to WLU - The consensus model comes from the American Psychiatric Association (who develops and publishes the DSM, of course), and the research specialists in the field of dissociative disorders. Where else would you get it? There are 3 MODELS that are considered by the APA and all 3 models should be presented on the WP DID page. pdf file (p.122-123)

Reply to WLU - The expert consensus statement on treatment guidelines for DID states that there is no actual research for the SCM. This dissenting view, with no research, is just speculation. The expert consensus in DID report that there is no actual research for the SCM POV. With no research support, any alternative ideas are just speculations. pdf file (p.124)Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 23:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For this to be a good article

I think Mathew's contributions have been outstanding to this article - the man is highly intelligent and he has made this mess of an article, exceptional in the areas where he has contributed. If the so called controversy interjected throughout by WLU was reduced to one paragraph, the article would be outstanding. I do understand that in saying this that Mathew still leans toward the SCM, but experts who do concentrate on DID do not.

I also need to add that much of the information and citations for the controversy were cherry picked by WLU. They are not a product of mainstream information but are certain authors, as well as words and sentences that were used out of context. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 20:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Borderline personality disorder

What does this section have to do with anything? Many disorders overlap with DID, the most common would be PTSD. This section is confusing and out of context.

"From the WP DID article: Between 50 and 66% of patients also meet the criteria for borderline personality disorder (BPD), and nearly 75% of patients with BPD also meet the criteria for DID with considerable overlap between the two conditions in terms of personality traits, cognitive and day-to-day functioning and ratings by clinicians. Both groups also report higher than general population rates of physical and sexual abuse, and patients with BPD also score highly on measures of dissociation.[5] The DSM states that acts of self-mutilation, impulsivity and rapid changes in interpersonal relationships "may warrant a concurrent diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder".[2]

Personality parts have various disorders, but that does not change the main Dx being DID. Read the DSM IV on page 529 to explain this starting with the 2nd paragraph that begins with "The Dx of DID takes precedence over..... Tanya~talk page 00:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
BPD seems to be especially noteworthy; though that section is based only on the DSM and the 2011 textbook, I'm pretty sure I've seen a discussion of the overlap before as a fairly major point about DID. I'll try to expand if I find more sources.
This is a misreading. "Personality parts" do not have various disorders. The person does. If that person has DID, other dissociative disorders are subsumed under the DID dx. However, if the person has other Axis I and/or Axis II disorders, then those are also diagnosed. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The DSM's point in that discussion is that DID takes precedence over other dissociative disorders; if you have a diagnosis of DID, you can't also have a diagnosis of DDNOS, dissociative amnesia, dissociative fugue or depersonalization disorder. In case your preview cuts out, the rest of the sentence is basically a list of the other dissociative disorders. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is the start and of course DID subsumes the other DD's. PTSD, borderline, are ALL subsumed under the one DX of DID IF the patient has DID. I will find you the references for this, but it seems such common knowledge, but what the heck. DSM is best ref most likely. Tanya~talk page 02:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
If there are enough sources and discussions, it might merit DID's second spin-off article and {{main}}, diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder, with a section for every major Axis I or II diagnosis that presents difficulties in distinguishing it from DID.
As far as I've seen you are wrong, DID does not take precedence over other diagnoses beyond the dissociative disorders; hence the section on comorbidities. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
My point is either address them all or none. If you are going to address one, then let it be the one that is most often co-morbid with DID and that is PTSD. Tanya~talk page 02:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Explain better what you are talking about. You are not making any sense. Better yet, I will find you some quotes to explain to you what is meant by this. Tanya~talk page 02:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I've only found sources discussing BPD in that detail and manner, so I've only expanded BPD. Possibly this is simply due to me looking for them, which I haven't done for comparable comorbidities. If PTSD has considerable overlap and comorbidities, I have no objection to that aspect being expanded as well. While I could see PTSD being comorbid with DID, I don't think it has the same overlap in terms of behaviour compared to DID the way BPD does (see for instance the information added in this edit). In other words, though many patients may be comorbid for DID and PTSD, I don't know if the two diagnoses would be mistaken for each other the same way, or if there would be such an issue of diagnostic substitution or determining if a patient has only BPD, only DID, only PTSD or some combination of the three. I'm not sure what else you're confused about. It makes sense to me, but I wrote it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 03:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Sir, notice here how you say "I could see" and "I don't think" - those are your own opinions. You do this often, yet both you and Mathew hit me for doing it. Tanya~talk page 04:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Sir, the problem here is that a mistaken Dx is due to therapist error. This has nothing to do with what DID is, or anything do do with the person with DID. This is simply a problem of lack of education and experience among therapists. I have read this about the therapist error many times, but here is the first ref that I found. I can find others if needed. Howell 2011 - pg 2. "Because DID has erroneously been thought to be rare (because highly dissociative people tend to present polysymptomatically and because the disorder is so often hidden), assessing and treating clinicians have often missed the diagnosis.... and so on. By the way, thank you for having a rational discussion with me. I appreciate it when you discuss like this. Tanya~talk page 03:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't suggest my opinions are adequate reason to adjust the main page or discount sources, nor do I use them to demand other editors change their minds or that the whole page be rewritten to portray one side of a dispute as a minority position. For instance, my opinion of Howell is quite low because she seems to publish mostly in books by Karnac Press - but am not arguing she can not be used. Note that I am speculating and writing within the framework of reliable sources, not solely my own opinion - for instance, I was able to turn up several sources discussing the overlap of BPD and DID relatively quickly. These sources then formed the basis for my edits to the actual page.
I find it markedly condescending when you praise me for having a rational discussion. Please don't bother. If I'm behaving "rationally", all I am looking for is a rational reply. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 04:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Personality parts" are not give additional diagnoses to DID, the person is. In DID there is only one person who has dissociated identities. If that person has other dissociative disorders, those are subsumed under the one dx DID. In addition to DID, the person is often diagnosed with other Axis I and Axis II disorders such Borderline personality disorder and (often) several others. DSM 5 is not finalized and is not published and will not be until next year. So we only have access to the "proposed" version, not the finalized version. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for setting that straight, Sir. Tanya~talk page 15:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Note to self - Gillig also has a section on DID/BPD, should integrate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

external link to article on Simple Wikipedia

It's not right to write an article on Simple Wikipedia, making almost 200 edits there in the last few days see User statistics for that article, then reference it in External links on this article. So I've removed the link. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, why is it not right? Nobody owns an article, and this article will be changed by other editors like any other article. I think the question of who wrote an article should not be a criterion for including it in the External links list, the only relevant question is if the article's content makes it relevant for this list. Lova Falk talk 18:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Lova Falk, except that there is actually a link to the Simple English Wikipedia article in the side bar (under languages) so we don't need another one in external links.
To be really pedantic, the link in the side bar is generated by wikitext in the "external links" section!
Yaris678 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I find that a valid argument for not including the link in the list! Lova Falk talk 18:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend, Simple is a valid interwiki link, please don't remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Please Mathew - why do you take this so personal? Why are you now on simple WP harassing me? Can't you just help me instead of attacking like this please. I know you want me gone, but I am not going. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 21:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I should point out that removing the link from interwikis is kinda pointless, as it would likely be re-added by a bot within a day or two. If there are issues with the Simple version, metapedianism is always encouraged. If there are interpersonal issues at play, dispute resolution is thataway. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The last person that tried that here was banned. I don't trust the process. I am not an engrained and long term editor. I feel that I would loose not matter if I am right or wrong. There is nothing personal between myself and Mathew and WLU - at least that I know of. Mathew and WLU simply believe in a minority idea called sociocognitive (this means that DID is caused from watching TV, reading books and influence from a therapist - it does not support that DID is caused from childhood abuse as the experts in DID believe) and since they believe in it they feel the article should support it equally with what the experts in DID believe. The job of WP is report the consensus of experts, not the POV of editors. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 21:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The issue is with the version here. Mathew did not care less about that other version until I started to work on it a few days ago. Looking at the stats - until that time it was a simple and rather neglected article. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Tylas, your 1000 edits of POV was removed from the Wikipedia article. You have been threatened with a block twice, the last time was your final warning. So you moved your POV to Simple Wikipedia, so now it's ok, according to Nikkimaria. Shows what a farce wikipedia is. All the fuss about reliable sources is just a show, evidently, if Wikipedia supports linking to POV articles on Simple Wikipedia. I wouldn't care if the Wikipedia article weren't linked to the POV at Simple. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Mathew - WLU had a version he wanted in his sandbox and he simply replaced what I was in the process of working on with his version. I had mine out in the open and worked on it daily and welcomed others to help. Oh you are twisting words. Two women have politely reminded me that I cannot talk about some groups of people on here and I won't. (please, see my talk page for this information) That is not a problem at all. Don't try and get me to say the word - please. Not nice! I have not "moved" my POV anywhere. I was researching for another project I am working on and found that article and started to work on it. Period! I am not expressing my POV. I am trying to get WP to report the expert consensus of those that study DID like the encyclopedia is suppose to. Instead I run up again WLU who still claims things that are only believed in the pop culture [ [diff|diff] ] and then you show up and support him. I have no idea what that is about and don't want to know. The experts in DID are not a POV minority group! Oh my! You can't rattle me. Hound me. Attack me all you want. I am not going. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Two women threatened you with a block because you were calling editors paedophiles and worse. The last time your comments to a Signpost talk page were oversighted, removed completely from Wikipedia and you were given a final warning. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Let us remind everyone that the stats here do not show the reality. The reality is that just about any edit that WLU does not agree with is reverted by him. I still don't know the deal with Mathew, but WLU is crystal clear. As of right now, I have 2 edits on the entire DID page. One is the Janet image, the other is the text under the image on top that Doc James put there. The worlds top researchers in DID report that there is NO actual research for the sociocognitive POV that Mathew and WLU want to put as equal to the traumagenic Models. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Mathew, I don't care if the link to simple is there or not. I just thought it was the right thing to do. Whatever is decided on this, does not matter to me at all. I have no opinion on it. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Man, this is a lotta fuss about an interwiki. Mathew, we link to interwiki versions of our articles no matter what the state of the article may be in other wikis, just as other wikis link to our articles whether they're up to standards or not. Interwikis aren't sources, nor does the presence of an interwiki link give any sort of "approval" to it. To give you an analogy, we quite often provide wikilinks to articles of our own that, quite frankly, suck. The answer to both problems is not to remove the links, but to fix whatever problems exist to the best of our abilities. (And honestly, very few people click interwikis anyway). The rest of the back-and-forth above does not belong on this page, period, and I'm very tempted to just remove all of it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

yep! I for one did not know an interwiki existed! Heck I did not know simple existed until a few days ago. That is why I wanted to link to it. Removing all that banter does not bother me at all! I sure would like to be able to edit without every edit here being reverted though. I am not stupid. I actually know quite a bit about DID.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the proper way to address this is to edit the SEW article, which is inappropriately biased. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh that means run me off there and make sure the article shows a mintory/fringe POV that says that watching TV, reading a book and therapist influences actually causes DID. You two are showing the perfect example of how to run even the most stubborn of editors off WP. Very sad. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Nope, that means I at least will have to clean up another article you have POV-pushed on, by citing numerous reliable sources that indicate the SCM is not, as you claim on SEW, "wrong". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone stop sort this sort of fringe/minority POV pushing or is this just the destiny of WP? Here is the consensus of the actual experts on DID. pdf file It is online for free and summarized for you on page 124. About the minority/fringe POV that Mathew and WLU want presented equal to the traumagenic models (there are 3 of them) is summarized by the the expert consensus as: ..."there is no actual research that shows that the complex phenomenology of DID can be created, let alone sustained over time, by suggestion, contagion, or hypnosis." (p.124). Pages 123 and 124 of this document summarize this entire debate. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 23:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I rewrote the SEW page. I have no issue with linking to it now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
More accurately, I have no issue linking to this version of SEW. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
WLU, as you know your total rewrite of the DID simple version goes back to trying to confuse people and to push your POV as being equal to the of the experts that study DID. The idea is to explain to people what DID is. Not run them around in circles. The main idea however is to express the consensus of the experts who work with and study DID, not to report the skeptics (that are skeptical of much of psychology) minority POV as if it is equal. A paragraph explaining the controversy would work perfect for DID.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 03:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please use mainstream information that is 5 years old or newer - do not cherry pick You are using information cherry picked from the intro to articles again. Also, again with the pop culture and the only agreement on this site we have all made is to use citations 5 years old or less and you are going back throwing in an old version probably from your sandbox that has this old thing in it: ↑ Piper, A.; Merskey, H. (2004). "The persistence of folly: Critical examination of dissociative identity disorder. Part II. The defence and decline of multiple personality or dissociative identity disorder" (pdf). Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie 49 (10): 678–683. PMID 15560314. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 03:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The article cites many articles more recent than 2004. Your point is moot. I will bring this up at dispute resolution since we are getting nowhere on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I will be back

Please understand that even though the WP DID page says I have a bunch of edits there - I have none. Everything I ever did on the WP DID page has been changed, so please do not think I would ever write such a horrendous page. I am sorry I have let everyone down who has DID, cares about someone with DID and even the general public, but I will be back! The couple of editors that work on the WP page find ways, by manipulating WP rules, to report that DID could be caused by literally anything including reading a book or watching a movie, even though the experts report that DID IS caused by childhood trauma. They also try and make the public believe that iatrogenic methods which can create a temporary personality state is actually DID! This is so Whacked! The NPOV rule on WP is often distorted as it is on the DID page and used to present fringe material as equal to mainstream consensus. It's a sad trend of WP - but it is how things are here. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 18:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Upon your return I will resurrect the DID discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard or comparable outlet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I totally look forward to it! What do you think I have been doing the last week, but getting ready for that. I want to take you to every board WP has! Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 19:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Pick the most appropriate, per WP:CANVAS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

number of alters

"The number of alters varies widely, with most patients identifying fewer than ten, though as many as 4,500 have been reported."

Is there a source for this? How could a person function with 4,500 alters? MathewTownsend (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I share your concerns. However, this edit was made by WLU, usually a good editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dissociative_identity_disorder&diff=next&oldid=506329819 Lova Falk talk 17:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This is from the introduction of the DID sub-section of the Dissociation chapter. The preview on the paper version cuts out on that page, but I can see that page on the e-book version [5]. You could also try this link which has a search string embedded in it that highlights the line. For some reason the same search doesn't work on the paper-scanned version, no idea why. The source is "Acocella, 1999" which may be Joan Acocella's book Creating Hysteria, which I have read and does discuss DID.
How could a person function with 4,500 alters? The argument for me would be a step back - do they really have 4,500 alters, or is the patient reporting 4,500 alters? What do you do, count them? How long would each one take, how would you verify, how would you distinguish between them, etc. etc. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Here it says that one clinician has reported a case with 4,500 alters. To me, it sounds as if this one clinician has received undue weight in a couple of books and in this article... Lova Falk talk 19:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Oddly, using the snippet view search of Creating Hysteria (which is a book by the way, not an article - so this is probably books citing other books which, hopefully, cite an actual research article somewhere) I couldn't verify this actual statement. That's not a perfect option though, you have to know the exact phrase, numbers don't seem to work very well, and the snippet view only gives you the first three snippets to look at (out of 52 instances of the word "alter" in one search). I do have access to a paper copy of Creating Hysteria but won't be able to get my hands on it for a couple weeks.
I think it's legit to report this as a "max number" of alters, becuase it does seem a natural question to ask - the mean, median, mode and range of number of alters, as well as their qualities (i.e. animals, famous people, child, adult, mythological figure, etc.). If we're discussing whether to remove it, I would rather it stay in. If we're discussing expanding on that number, I think that would be undue weight. Though best might be reading the actual book to see how it arrives at this oft-repeated number. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It's fine with me to keep it. Wikipedia says what the source says and not what we think is plausible or not. But please tell us when you have the book! Lova Falk talk 19:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
agree that giving the range is ideal, but the number so so outlandish that it needs a citation. Even with a computer, can you imagine a therapist keeping track of that many - making sure one name wasn't just a nickname for another, etc.? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Before 1999, how many therapists would use a computer during treatment to count their patients alters? Lova Falk talk 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

well, psychologists were certainly using computers by the early 1990s, and how else could anyone keep treatment notes on 4500 alters? It would be a full time job! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
As a school psychologist in 2000, in two consecutive jobs and four schools, the school psychologists who were there before me had written their journals by hand. In two schools, there was not even a computer in my room. I had to borrow the teacher's computer. My guess is that a lot of psychologists working as a therapist in 1999 still wrote journals by hand. Lova Falk talk 06:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Acocella was published in '99. Kluft, who actually "found" the 4,500 alters, was published in '88, which means researched in probably '87. So if there was any computer involved, it was probably a monochrome monitor and a dot matrix printer. Remarkable that a little over 20 years later we can hyperlink to the original paper on a website made of millions of pages. It's a swell time to be alive :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Ya, same thought as Lova; I'm guessing the therapist said "how many people are there in you" and this was the response they got. I imagine the next question was "are any of you lobsters?" Sure would have been if I'd heard of the lobster case... Anyway, it has a citation, and to a very reliable source. Verifiability is not an issue. At this point, to include it in the page or not is a matter of editorial judgement. Creating Hysteria is published by Jossey-Bass Publishers, which is apparently an imprint of John Wiley & Sons, itself a very reliable publisher of scholarly material. So we appear to have a reliable scholarly textbook citing another scholarly volume, both published by the same reputable scholarly publishing company. Bar some other reliable criticism of that (completely outlandish) number, it's not really our place to point out how absurd it is, and why we think it ridiculous. Now, if there is such a criticism, we serve the reader by pointing it out and exploring it as we should all substantive controversies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Something that is ridiculous needs a citation, more that asking someone how many alters they have. And what was the origin of the statement, and what was the quality of those that repeated it? It matters. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Also Jossey-Bass Publishers are not top notch academic publisher but rather one of the branches of John Wiley & Sons, use to publish a lower standard of work than their academic textbooks and works by academic authors. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I managed to track it down, it's on page 4 of Creating Hysteria, and it references Kluft, 1988, and on page 52 it does indeed reference a patient with 4,500 alters (and another 4,000, and another with 1,600). This is one of those situations where we could probably cite the primary source without issue for this statement of fact. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Kluft, 1988] should be sourced directly. Creating Hysteria is not a WP:MEDRS regardless of who it references. Journalists are not reliable sources for medical articles, even if they write for The New Yorker. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Plurality, anyone?

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add a disambig link to 'plurality' or 'plural' as another name to a person who experiences DID as it has been referenced as a name for DID & MPD in the past- would I have to dig up a ref. for that first? - Coriander (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You got it! Good luck digging. Lova Falk talk 19:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Co-morbid

The article now says "Most dissociative disorder cases have co-morbid mental disorders, with an average of 8 axis I and 4.5 axis II DSM diagnoses." That is an error. The literature says most people diagnosed with DID have previously received that many other diagnoses. For the most part these are mis-diagnoses not co-morbidities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.100.217 (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, that statement is sourced, and I cannot access the source, so I cannot check and change it. Do you have a good source to support your statement? Lova Falk talk 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Even if you are correct that those are misdiagnoses and can support that with a citation, it does not change that assertion. Eight incorrect diagnoses still equals eight diagnoses. Dementia13 (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

memoirs

109.205.248.22 (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If in some case second and third ego can access memory of the first, the question is:
Could second person know past of third person and vice?

Recent edits

There is no reason for this edit to stand, it is not ownership to undo vandalism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That edit is not vandalism. WLU is creating excuses for his attempts to control this article. KrystalMan (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Your undo replaced a British spelling of behavior against WP:ENGVAR, two case reports from 1981 which fail WP:MEDRS and the addition of the word "anal" that is not included in the source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I must concur with KrystalMan here. Although I am not taking one side or another, either for editors or in the controversy over DID, but from what I see, one editor here is extremely biased - WLU. This editor has seen fit to revert any edit that I make. This page needs a great deal of work and nothing can be done while this biased editor is going to sit watch and act as if he is lord and master of the work here. The literature and research supports a great deal of changes that need to be made to page. Z (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
You must concur with KrystalMan that the article must include two references to case reports from 1981 must be included, that a single use of "behaviour" should exist despite the rest of the page using "behavior", and that patients over-report painful anal events? My respective reasons for reverting these changes are WP:MEDRS, WP:ENGVAR and WP:VAND, as I note above.
Despite claiming you do not take one side or the other, your edits have been rather universally to favour the traumagenic hypothesis.
If a great deal of literature supports the changes that need to be made, then surely you can support this with citations? Your edits to date have cited essentially none of these citations, though you have removed information verified by reliable sources (including the DSM itself). You have stated that claims are "biased"; if this is the case, then please provide a reliable source to substantiate that point. Similarly, you have cited "inaccuracies". How do you verify that they are inaccurate? You make the rather sweeping claim that diagnosis is difficult for those not trained in trauma related disorders, note that DID is controversial but remove the reasons why, then give pride of place to the ISSTD treatment guidelines (in the lead, but this is already noted in the body, and it is disingenuous to note these guidelines without noting that they are unsubstantiated, untested, and that asside from the ISSTD's set, there is no consensus over appropriate treatment (nor does this addition note that the ISSTD's guidelines are only accepted by the ISSTD, not elsewhere). Also, calling them "clear and concise" is an opinion, presumably yours since you do not provide a citation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I did cite my additions. You reverted them. My edits are in favor of what the current research shows, your edits seem to be in favor of pop culture accepted information, and that of a small section of researchers that are known to be professional skeptics in many avenues of psychology. These people are not experts in DID, they are researchers that look for any weakness to attack. I do not find myself looking to pop culture or these types of people for my information, so yes, perhaps I do favor the traumagenic view when you twist the words and put it that way. Do you attack every editor that comes to this page? My agreement with another editor was in reference to your attacks on editors here. I have not reviewed that persons edits. I simply read what was currently in the article. The etiology of DID does have some controversy, but this page makes it appear that the skeptics and pop culture is where the disagreement is. The issues are between real experts, and their working both together and against each other to find what is. I don't know of any researchers who says that DID does not exist, even your small handful of professional skeptics agree that it exists. Your entire post here is filled with animosity against the mainstream consensus of the experts who research DID. Wikipedia is suppose to be an open source that is not bias. You are showing extreme bias here, I am afraid. Z (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Your edit added exactly one source, the ISSTD guidelines. It also removed sentences and and a citation (specifically this reference) based on no rational I can see beyond you not liking it. You are also changing the lead section without making changes to, or referring to, the body - and the process is always backwards, body first, then lead.
None, none of my sources for any section but "History" and "Society and culture" are popular culture, there is very, very clearly a debate, an extensive one, within the scholarly literature over the subject. I have seen claims like yours before, generally from people who have only ever read the traumagenic side of the literature, and they are nonsense. My sources draw from the scholarly literature, in pubmed-indexed, peer-reviewed journals, most of it very recent, where there is an obvious debate (note for instance, this source that I plan on integrating, which rather clearly illustrates there is still controversy and debate). You don't get to claim only one side of the discussion are the experts merely because you agree with them, the standard for inclusion of sources is reliability. There are not "real" experts and "fake" experts, there is a debate within the scholarly literature, and even if there was a "mainstream consensus" (which there isn't, there is a polarized debate between multiple etiologies, most of whom generally do not cite each others' work) WP:UNDUE permits, encourages even, the discussion of minority positions. And again, the standard is "significant viewpoints published in reliable sources" - not whether you agree with something or the ISSTD publishes it. All critics I cite publish, and publish rather frequently, lengthy articles in peer-reviewed journals or scholarly press.
KrystalMan's edits have never been in good faith, and if you'll look at the substance of his changes, they were either wrong or vandalism, as I have laid out quite clearly twice now. Don't you think agreeing with his edits without knowing what they were is a rather bad idea? Did you want to include the painful anal events?
I have reverted your changes again. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I looked down the list of edits to the page and noticed numerous reverts by one id - WLU. I can only take from that, and your revert of all my edits that you are self appointed controller for this page. From what I have read in this article, I cannot accept you as judge and jury of what is correct and what is not. You are obviously well established in wikipedia, but are not a mental health professional or researcher. There are many instances of referenced text in the article, but that text looks familiar to me, and I believe much of it has probably been taken from abstracts, and then used out of context, leaving what is in this article to be flat out incorrect. My changes to the article are correct, and as time allows there will be more. Your obvious attempt to run me off will be in vain. I actually had little interest in this article, until I found that the simplest edits cannot be modified here. This is sad, since I prefer to work with a group and without conflict. I hope all of wikipedia is not like this. Z (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't ask you to judge me, I ask you to judge the sources used, and the text that they verify. I ask you to read the policies I cite, and see if my edits are in accordance with them. It doesn't matter if I, or you, are a mental health professional - none of these citations or edits depend on our individual qualifications (see the Essjay controversy if you want an example of why). It depends on how they align with the policies and guidelines, with the reliability of the sources, and the number of sources, and the impact and authority of the sources - not us or our personal opinions. For that matter, mental health researchers can be biased, often strongly so (witness these very facts being argued in the sources themselves).

I'm not trying to run you off. I'm showing you the policies that underpin wikipedia, and the reasons for my edits. If you cease removing text you disagree with and instead expand the parts of the page for which you can find sources or points that are currently missing, much of our conflict will disappear. I have read many of the sources, probably most of them. If you can find sources that are poorly-summarized or incorrectly summarized, please correct them but don't simply remove them.

Not all of wikipedia is like this, but many pages that discuss highly polarized issues are, and this is appropriate. Wikipedia attempts to summarize all facets of a topic, not merely one. Barak Obama will discuss his Nobel Peace Prize, and his drone strikes against terrorists and civilians. Further, Wikipedia is currently generally quite well developed. The low-hanging fruit has been plucked, and most of the major topics have been quite extensively described. Editing wikipedia is no longer easy, it takes considerable time and knowledge to specialize in topics. You may be surprised by the sources you must read, because chances are you have never read them. It takes quite a bit of time to contribute to a page as developed as this one.

If you want to reduce strife, learn the policies and guidelines. Refer to sources. Do not insist that your personal knowledge of the topic is sufficient to delete sources or ideas. If we reach intractable, source-based disagreement, we can refer to dispute resolution. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Also note that earlier today I requested input from the medicine wikiproject. See here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I shall then cite all edits, and fix the existing text that has been used out of context. I am not basing anything on my personal knowledge of any topic, but I do have the ability to paraphrase correctly, and not use information out of context to fit my own bias, as I see done quite a bit on this page. I welcome professionals to edit this page. Z (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I have looked at the list of references on this page and I do believe I have read just about all of them before, which is why I recall the articles that are referenced, and know much of the text on the page is used out of context to mean the opposite of what it is used for. I do enjoy digging into research, and I fill my spare time doing just that. I do see an attempt to slow or disallow any edits to this page. Some editors appear to have the wikipedia game well in hand, and acknowledge that use of the wikipedia process. It is used well to obtain the goal of using wikipedia to broadcast bias.Z (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
That's great, learn to play the game early so you don't leave in frustration and disgust. Please read the policies I point to, and don't pretend the issue is "so important" you don't have time to follow the policies properly. You may want to read this essay I wrote for new editors to get a bit of a sense of the place, or simply the five pillars. Process is important, and avoiding it will just lead to wasting time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Malingering

The section I removed was done because it is sourced incorrectly. This statement is made in the ISSTD guidelines, (and I will let you find the exact page) rather than the DSM. This is an error and the citation needs to be corrected or the text removed. I don't care which. Check that all citations are correct. Fix your error, rather than just reverting. The DSM-5 has an ungodly amount of research put into it. Z (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

On page 529 of the DSM-IV-TR it states, in the final paragraph before the diagnostic criteria for DID, "Dissociative Identity Disorder must be distinguished from Malingering in situations in which there may be financial or forensic gain and from Factitious Disorder in which there may be a pattern of help-seeking behavior." How is it sourced incorrectly? The ISSTD guidelines state this as well on pages 129-130, so it can be added as a citation - but then I'm not sure why you removed it since there are now four citations that verify the point. Can you explain that? I have replaced it, removed the "DSM-5 doesn't mention this" part since is irrelevant and mentioned in the ISSTD guidelines, and fixed the ISSTD guidelines link. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to get into this general dispute, but just to point out that DSM-5 does in fact mention the malingering/factitious issue - but only as one in a list of differential diagnoses to consider. It seems to me that including that in the first paragraph might give it undue prejudicial weight. Though I accept that sources viewing the condition are more prone to fakery than others, or to only ever have been faked or falsely diagnosed, would give the issue more prominance. Sighola2 (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
AgreedZ (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
That might be an issue if only the DSM stated this, but the ISSTD and several other sources also note it. In fact, there are two sections (differential diagnosis and legal issues) that discuss malingering in detail.
Also, Zopyros, can you explain Sighola2's comment that the DSM-5 does mention malingering in light of your statement "Looking at the new dsm5 I see no mention of this"? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The DSM5 does not, as sighola said, mention malingering in the criteria for DID. I agree with sighola that it is misleading (bias) to have it in the first section of this article. Did you even find where the ISSTD notes this. It is not as an introduction by any means, and the statement is not used by the ISSTD to confuse, but to use caution when giving a diagnosis. This happens to be the case for many mental disorders, not just DID. Z (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not a "criteria", it is a "consideration" - and Sighola2's actual comment is this exact quote, emphasis added, "...DSM-5 does in fact mention the malingering/factitious issue...". My question was why you claimed that the DSM-5 did not mention this at all.
The article used the word "considered" exactly. Also note that there is an entire section discussing the legal issues regarding DID, including its extreme controversiality within the criminal justice system. I don't see it as misleading, the DSM, both 5 and IV-TR included this as a consideration, indicating it is of some importance. As for discussions of other mental disorders, it is quite possible that they are less developed as pages, or the issues are less important for them.
You will note that I gave page numbers for this discussion in the ISSTD document, so yes I found where it discussed malingering. Where the ISSTD puts it is irrelevant, as it does not have a lead section as wikipedia does, nor is it an encyclopedia, nor is it the sole arbiter of the relevant aspects of DID. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
No consensus for removal yet. Please get consensus first as current content is well referenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The latest suggestion by Zopyros seems to be not about removal, but positioning/context? Sighola2 (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It requires confirmation, but Zopyros seems to be misunderstanding the purpose of the WP:LEAD; my interpretation is, it is supposed to summarize the article overall, and I would suggest that this point is important enough to note in the lead - rather than being biasing, it is important context (important enough for the DSM-IV-TR and the DSM-5 to note it, as well as important enough to have an entire section on at least legal issues). I believe the statement about "bias" comes from a belief that DID is due to childhood abuse, the belief that this is well-established and universally recognized, and that any dissenting opinions should not get much space in the article. I disagree with Zopyros' belief (if I have captured it correctly) as it is rather easy to find whole articles discussing the controversial nature of DID and alternative explanations for its symptoms, but regards the specific points of malingering and factitious disorder I think they merit a mention in the lead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the body, and the article should present a accurate view of DID, but it does neither. Statements like the one in question are given undo weight, when other items of greater importance to the subject at hand are ignored. Malingering should be noted, but not be used to present a biased POV. There are a handful of professional skeptics (whose names curiously populate the reference section of this article) that argue against the current accepted consensus of those who study, research and treat DID. Important views should be presented on wp, but what I see here is that important and interesting competing views between experts are ignored, and instead a minor skeptical view is heavily weighted. It's easy to find articles that directly address attackers, but a few words from a summary, conclusion or introduction of those articles does not address the point, but is what is done here on this page. WP editors who argue this bias should not be allowed to dominate an article. Quotes used in this wp page are obviously taken out of context and used with prejudice. This wp article appears to be used to continue ignorance, rather than to represent mainstream view. Mescape and the merck manual for health care professionals present a good example of the mainstream, accurate consensus view. There has been a lot of cherrypicking by some editors here so they can present their biased POV, rather than presenting what is accepted in the mainstream today. Define consensus, because on this page it seems to mean it's okay if editor wlu approves it, otherwise it's not. Z (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS; part of consensus is adherence to the broader consensus of the community, as embodied in the policies and guidelines. This is a wikipedia-specific idea, consensus between editors. Wikipedia articles should also reflect the larger scholarly consensus on the topic discussed, but this idea is found in our policy on undue weight and neutrality in general (and is demonstrated by reference to reliable sources).
We do not have an "accurate" (which is to say, "true") page; we have a page that is verifiable in reliable sources. While Merck and Emedicine are acceptable sources, they are not the only sources, and the sources on the page are all MEDRS-compliant, drawn from the peer reviewed literature and scholarly press. The page should not accept or endorse the viewpoint of Colin Ross any more than it should endorse or accept the viewpoint of Scott Lilienfeld. It's no more "curious" to see skeptical names in the references than it is to see Ross' name in the references (and incidentally, there is no "skeptical" side; Ross is skeptical of the sociocognitive model, and Lilienfeld is skeptical of the traumagenic model). You say that "important and interesting competing views between experts are ignored" - well, if this is true, please find and summarize reliable sources to verify this point. I will also note that the page is rather full of "important and interesting competing views between experts", though the primary division is between the SCM and traumagenic models.
If you think the page is wrong - pick a sentence you object to, and say why. If a source verifies the point, say why the source, or the verified text, is unacceptable.
The idea that the traumagenic model is the "mainstream" view is an assertion; please substantiate this through reference to reliable sources. I have several sources that consistently state that the etiology of DID is debated and disputed, so I see no overall scholarly consensus.
Every single one of my edits is based on a scholarly, peer-reviewed article. These are not my opinions, they are the opinions of scholars. Unless the article is inappropriate, or the text is inaccurate, there is little to discuss. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Per "to represent mainstream view" And the DSM does not represent a mainstream view? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
If the DSM-5 were to be used as a guideline for this page, then the page would no longer be a battleground, nor would the page be one of the last dinosaurs on the internet to keep the antique stance on DID that it does. I hope the posts in this thread are an indication that this is the direction that editors will now take. Z (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Seeing that the NIMH is continuing to use the DSM 4 TR over the DSM 5 we need to represent both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

To return to this subsection's focus on the malingering/factitious issue, in the DSM-IV-TR also these are only mentioned at the end of the Differential Diagnosis section which is at the end of the text section. Sighola2 (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Regards the DSM, it is far from the only source of information we use to discuss a topic, and there is extensive discussion in the peer reviewed literature regarding DID's etiology. It is still consistently described in many sources as "the most controversial diagnosis in psychiatry". Far from being "dinosaurs", there are many references from the last five years that take this stance. Zopyros has yet to indicate any reason to ignore these sources beyond the unsubstantiated assertion that they represent a trivial minority (despite there being a rather lot of them). The DSM-IV-TR does discuss the controversiality of the diagnosis, though not extensively, but it is only three rather short pages. I haven't read the DSM-5 yet, though apparently it does discuss malingering and factitious disorder. Right Zopyros?
I got my hands on a copy of the DID section of the DSM-5, and it does discuss malingering and factitious disorder (page 297). The discussion is actually considerably longer than in DSM-IV-TR, two paragraphs versus a single sentence, and focuses on how to distinguish "true" DID from faked. It also has an interesting discussion of prevalence quite at odds with the ISSTD's numbers, though it curiously bases this on a single small study. Not sure what to do with that. It walks a fine line regards traumagenic origins, stating that distress, trauma and abuse are "associated" with DID without using the word "cause". Overall an interesting change from DSM-IV-TR. However, changes to the DSM-5 neither eliminate nor override the existing critical literature which, again, there is a pretty large amount of. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with jmh and sighola. Z (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I have already addressed the other concerns. I prefer to take the opinions of experts on DID and the argument seems to go in circles and grasp at anything to keep the minority skeptic view front and center. This is an extreme bias. The minority skeptics view should of course be noted in the article, but it should not be given the weight it has here on wp. The article here is indeed a dinosaur. Z (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The circle would turn into a line if you acknolwedged that "skeptics" are also, for wikipedia's purposes, "experts" so long as they publish in the peer reviewed literature. Even if they were a "minority" view, which is your opinion and not a fact that I have seen, WP:UNDUE permits minority expert views provided they are found in reliable sources. Given the number of such critical views, I would argue that it is questionable to judge them as a minority.
And again, your claim that they are "dinosaur" views is obviated by the fact that so many of them are published in the past five years.
Keep in mind that the presence of skeptical views in no way prevents you from expanding the traumagenic position; rather than attempting to purge the page of skeptical views, why not devote your energies to expanding the side you agree with? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to the wp article as a dinosaur, not any individual. I have never proposed removing the minority skeptical view from the page, but this one view should not be given weight it has here on wp. There is a length consideration, as well, and content should use efficiently, rather than a repetitive rehashing of the same tiresome, and ancient argument over and over again. No where on the internet (that I have seen) is this done anymore. Editors have moved on and present current information. The wp article on DID is indeed a dinosaur. Again, I suggest looking at more modern presentations for DID including the merk manual and medscape. Z (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
And I am pointing out that a) it should be given such weight because it can be easily verified by reference to existing and recent reliable sources (again, page content is determined by reliable sources, not editor opinion) and b) it's not a dinosaur because these sources are recent. The debate is ongoing. Merck and Medscape are the kind of tertiary sources that we generally don't use except for broad points of overview. And they use a different standard from wikipedia - we have our own policies, guidelines and manual of style, and I refer to them frequently. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder

How will you get to talk the alter of the person? Is it possible? Or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobzBagz (talk • contribs) 13:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Clean list of sources

Please use this section to list any sources not already in the page. Please do not use it to discuss them. Please do not add signatures or datestamps as this will cause them to be archived.

Iatrogenic model has been renamed "sociocognitive", google scholar search [6]

No date

  • [7] - ISSTD advising against "truth serum" interviews
  • [8] NPR story, probably better for looking into sources rather than actual citation
  • Staniloiu - Neuroimaging and Dissociative Disorders No date and I'm not sure where it was published, possibly Advances in Brain Imaging? Might be a conference presentation - WLU

1998

2000

  • Phelps, 2000 - Dissociative identity disorder: the relevance of behavior analysis

2001

  • [9] 2001 Sutker, Comprehensive handbook of psychopathology

2002

  • Merckelbach, 2002 - Alters in dissociative identity disorder

2003

  • [10] Lilienfeld & Lynn, 2003, Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (chapter 5)

2004

2005

2006

  • [11] 2006 Rieber, The bifurcation of the self

2007

  • [12] Lowenstein, in Vermetten et al., 2007 (ISBN 158562196X), Traumatic dissociation: neurobiology and treatment
  • [13] Lilienfeld, 2007 - Psychological treatments that cause harm

2008

  • [14] Foote, 2008, Dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia: differential diagnosis and theoretical issues
  • [15] Korol, 2008, Familial and social support as protective factors against the development of dissociative identity disorder.

Giesbrecht, 2008 - Cognitive Processes in Dissociation]

2009

  • [16] Manning 2009, Convergent paradigms for visual neuroscience and dissociative identity disorder
  • [17] Drob et al, 2009, Clinical and conceptual problems in the attribution of malingering in forensic evaluations.
  • [18] Kring, 2009, Abnormal psychology
  • McKay, 2009 - Psychogenic amnesia: when memory complaints are medically unexplained
  • Gillig, Paulette Marie (2009). "Dissociative Identity Disorder". Psychiatry. Psychiatry. pp. 24–29.

2010

  • [19] Weiner & Craighead, 2010, The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology
  • [20] Clancy, 2010, The Trauma Myth ISBN 046501688X
  • [21] Lynn et al. 2010, Dissociation and dissociative identity disorder: Treatment guidelines and cautions
  • [22] Bravman, 2010, Controversy: Dissociative Identity Disorder
  • Staniloiu, 2010, Searching for the Anatomy of Dissociative Amnesia

2011

  • [23] Lilienfeld, 2011, Distinguishing Scientific From Pseudoscientific Psychotherapies (possibly useful)
  • [24] 2011 Tavris, Multiple Personality Deception
  • [25] Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis, 2011, Michel. Hersen, Deborah C. Beidel - seems to have a lot of previewable text, and a lot of pages...

2012

  • Stern DB (2012). "Witnessing across time: accessing the present from the past and the past from the present". The Psychoanalytic Quarterly. 81 (1): 53–81. PMID 22423434. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Dalenberg CJ, Brand BL, Gleaves DH, Dorahy MJ, Loewenstein RJ, Cardeña E, Frewen PA, Carlson EB, Spiegel D (2012). "Evaluation of the evidence for the trauma and fantasy models of dissociation". Psychological Bulletin. 138 (3): 550–88. doi:10.1037/a0027447. PMID 22409505. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Nakic & Thomas, 2012, Dissociative Identity Disorder in the Courtroom
  • Brand, B. (2012). What We Know and What We Need to Learn About the Treatment of Dissociative Disorders. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 13(4): 387-396.
  • Brand, B., Lanius, R., Vermetten, E., Loewenstein, R. & Spiegel, D. (2012). Where Are We Going? An Update on Assessment, Treatment, and Neurobiological Research in Dissociative Disorders as We Move Toward the DSM-5. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 13(1): 9-31.
  • Edwards, V., Freyd, J., Dube, S., Anda, R. & Felitti, V. (2012). Health Outcomes by Closeness of Sexual Abuse Perpetrator: A Test of Betrayal Trauma Theory. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 21: 133-148.
  • Frick, C., Lang, S., Kotchoubey, B., Sieswerda, S., Dinu-Biringer, R., Berger, M., Veser, S., Essig, M. & Barnow, S. (2012). Hypersensitivity in Borderline Personality Disorder during Mindreading. PLoS ONE. 7(8): e41650.
  • Gobin, R. (2012). Partner Preferences Among Survivors of Betrayal Trauma. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 13(2): 152-174.
  • Goldsmith, R., Freyd, J. & DePrince, A. (2012). Betrayal Trauma: Associations With Psychological and Physical Symptoms in Young Adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 27(3): 547-567.
  • Huntjens, R., Verschuere, B. & McNally, R. (2012). Inter-identity autobiographical amnesia in patients with dissociative identity disorder. PLoS ONE. 7(7): e40580.
  • Lang, S., Kotchoubey, B., Frick, C., Spitzer, C., Grabe, H. & Barnow, S. (2012). Cognitive reappraisal in trauma-exposed women with borderline personality disorder. Neuroimage. 59(2): 1727-1734.
  • Platt, M. & Freyd, J. (2012). Trauma and negative underlying assumptions in feelings of shame: An exploratory study. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. 4(4): 370-378.
  • Read, J. & Bentall, R. (2012). Negative childhood experiences and mental health: theoretical, clinical and primary prevention implications. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 200 (2): 89–91.
  • Reinders, S., Willemsen, A., Vos, H., den Boer, J. & Nijenhuis, E. (2012). Fact or Factitious? A Psychobiological Study of Authentic and Simulated Dissociative Identity States. PLoS ONE. 7(6): e39279.
  • Teicher, M., Anderson, C. & Polcari, A. (2012). Childhood maltreatment is associated with reduced volume in the hippocampal subfields CA3, dentate gyrus, and subiculum. PNAS. 109(6): E563-E572.
  • Zurbriggen, E., Gobin, R. & Kaehler, L. (2012). Trauma, Attachment, and Intimate Relationships. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 13(2): 127-133. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikedjam (talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

2013

  • Spiegel, D.; Lewis-Fernández, R.; Lanius, R.; Vermetten, E.; Simeon, D.; Friedman, M. (2013). "Dissociative Disorders in DSM-5". Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 9: 299–326. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185531. PMID 23394228.
  • Defife, J. A.; Goldberg, M.; Westen, D. (2013). "Dimensional Assessment of Self- and Interpersonal Functioning in Adolescents: Implications forDSM-5's General Definition of Personality Disorder". Journal of Personality Disorders: 1. doi:10.1521/pedi_2013_27_085. PMID 23398103.
  • Schlumpf, Y.R., Nijenhuis, E.R.S, Chalavi, S., Weder, E.V., Zimmermann, E., Luechinger, R., La Marca, R., Reinders, A.A.T.S., Jancke, L. (2013). ‘Dissociative part-dependent biopsychosocial reactions to backward masked angry and neutral faces: An fMRI study of dissociative identity disorder.’ NeuroImage: Clinical. 3: 54-64.

Pathophysiology

Perhaps this source is worth mentioning: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811903005159

Aspectus 14:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconized (talk • contribs)

Therapist-Induced

The second phrase of paragraph two in this section reads "While proponents note that DID is accompanied by genuine suffering and the distressing symptoms, and can be diagnosed reliably using the DSM criteria, they are skeptical of the traumatic etiology suggested by proponents". This statement needs to be clarified, can someone please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vencaslac (talk • contribs) 11:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Also this study should be included; that strongly indicates that there is a big differences in the brain patterns of real cases of DID and those simulating it. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0039279 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.92.197 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a small-n primary source. Per WP:MEDRS and WP:RS in general, wikipedia is based on secondary sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

PET MRI scans prove the separateness of identity states

The entire article should be re-written in my opinion because the information garnered from PET scanning shows exactly how the brain works differently between different self states or whatever you want to call them. The entire tone of the article becomes offensive in that regard, as the author entirely ignores the last ten years of research into the subject by beginning the article with what any scientist would have to call an ignorant statement. There most certainly is empirical evidence to support this diagnosis, and treatment is therefore more successful now days as a result - provided their therapist keeps up their education. The author notes the theory regarding structural dissociation and appears to have missed the evidence of PET scans to formulate the hypothesis. 122.58.149.66 (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Editor 122.58.149.66 while you are correct that fMRI scans have shown exacting evidence of state switching and even clusters of states present at predictable times, accompanied by specific symptoms, leaving no doubt as to the existence of and differences in DID, OSDD, PTSD, and some versions of BPD, the editors who "watch this page like vultures" refuse to detour from their personal agenda. Granted this is not the overall purpose of WP, but still the site has allowed this and gave power to those who also allow it. Here on this page the one or two editors that "rule it" are masters at manipulating the game of WP. They don't care that the page is not at all accurate; all they want is the page to reflect their personal view. They add enough information, although bent profusely as you pointed out, that they can convince "higher-ups" that the page is indeed complete, and they will quickly point out the vast number of "proper references" used, but many are from researchers of their like mind-set, who ignore evidence for reasons that are unique to each, I am sure. To come to this page equipped with fMRI scans and the most accurate information to date will do you no good. To wage and ultimately win a war here, and it would be a war, you would have to be a master at the manipulation of people and of WP, and even if you held 100 graduate degrees in neurology and psychology it would do you no good. Masters of WP proudly call us the idiots. Tiredofidiots (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Tiredofidiots: Wikipedia is open to dissenting voices, providing you can meet its core policies of Neutral Point of View, verifiability, and no original research. It's not -- can't be -- about "the truth", no matter how passionately you feel about it, because others will disagree with you about what "the truth" might be. You are both welcome to provide citations to reliable sources that back up your positions on this. For articles on medical topics, like this, the bar for reliable source status is higher: please read WP:MEDRS for the criteria for medical sources. However, please also read WP:FRINGE for how Wikipedia presents positions and opinions outside the mainstream.
Alas, if you can't meet these criteria, the material can't go in. Have you tried, for example, getting your results published in a peer-reviewed medical journal? If so, have they yet been the subject of an independent peer-reviewed literature survey or meta analysis? -- The Anome (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The Anome, as editor @122.58.149.66: pointed out, "up to date material" is in peer reviewed journals, and books are available that were written by leaders in traumatology and bioneurology, and those books address the subject in full. This WP article carries with it a pervasive tone that perpetuates childish myths of DID, and it's written in a manner that misleads the public. Distinct states in DID have literally been captured on fMRI scans as they switch with each other; no other disorder has been shown, on a fMRI, to have more than one distinct state, and so on and so on. There is a difference between "truth" and a lack of understanding on a subject, and what this page shows is a pervasive and total lack of understanding. There are of course disputes in the field about many things, but literally no one of importance today promotes what is on this page. The main editor here will counter, I am sure, with the usual WP tricks and say that all researchers are equal, but that is far from the truth. We all know there is a grandiose amount of junk articles, and then there is published work by prominent leaders in any field. It is the work of leaders that should be presented, and their the evidence they present on fMRI imaging that backs up what they say. I tried to give links to examples of good and current research but WP will not allow posting of them. Tiredofidiots (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you give some examples here, so I can take a look at them, please? -- The Anome (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I will again see if WP will allow the external links here. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tiredofidiots (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Of the papers you've cited there, [1] looks to me like a review article that probably passes WP:MEDRS, and the sentence "Psychobiological studies are beginning to identify clear correlates of DID associated with diverse brain areas and cognitive functions." from the abstract seems to support your case for mentioning it in the article, but only as currently tentative terms, as "are beginning to identify" looks pretty tentative to me at this point. What wording do you suggest? -- The Anome (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


Let's look at it not from a WP stance, but from an evolutionary view.

  • Nijenhuis, E. R. S.; Van Der Hart, O. (2011). "Defining Dissociation in Trauma". Journal of Trauma & Dissociation." The authors bring back Janet's definition, with a few updates. The basically says that dissociation is an illness, and is caused by an overwhelming leading to a divide of the personalty keeping unprocessed trauma occurrence from the rest.
  • Frewen, P. A.; Lanius, R. A. (2014). "Trauma-Related Altered States of Consciousness: Exploring the 4-D Model". Journal of Trauma & Dissociation." Now other researchers struggled to catch up with Nijenhuis and van der Hart as is seen in this article and a plethora of others. Lanius is a powerhouse, but playing the underdog here as he educates others.
  • Dorahy, M. J.; Brand, B. L.; Ar, V.; Kruger, C.; Stavropoulos, P.; Martinez-Taboas, A.; Lewis-Fernandez, R.; Middleton, W. (2014). "Dissociative identity disorder: An empirical overview." I threw this one in just because I know it's what WP prefers, but it again shows how others are struggling to catch up with van der Hart and Nijenhuis. Dorhay is bringing the others slowly along. Of course you are probably getting the idea of where to go for the best research on this subject.
  • Kluemper, N. S.; Dalenberg, C. (2014). "Is the Dissociative Adult Suggestible? A Test of the Trauma and Fantasy Models of Dissociation." This I had to throw it to show the same old tired stuff that the editors on the DID page here like to find because they will take the intro that dismisses suggestibility and built that into a case for controversy. I hope soon these types of articles fade away. It's sad.
  • Reinders, A. A. T. S.; Willemsen, A. T. M.; Den Boer, J. A.; Vos, H. P. J.; Veltman, D. J.; Loewenstein, R. J. (2014). "Opposite brain emotion-regulation patterns in identity states of dissociative identity disorder: A PET study and neurobiological model". Here we have authors that have been paying attention. They provide some very good information and imaging. The proof is in the pudding, and these guys are showing it to you in black and white pictures.
  • Schlumpf, Y. R.; Reinders, A. A. T. S.; Nijenhuis, E. R. S.; Luechinger, R.; Van Osch, M. J. P.; Jäncke, L. (2014). "Dissociative Part-Dependent Resting-State Activity in Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Controlled fMRI Perfusion Study". There he is, Nijenhuis. Don't think he has been sitting on his laurels while all the others have been researching. He is carefully bringing the rest of the world along with he and van der Hart. Much more is known that has been published, but of course WP does not care about that, but it's time they move forward an inch or two so they don't look so foolish in the day to come. Notice the image that catches the distinct state in the process of switching. Of course this is only telling a short story of what we actually know, but once you get that there is no turning back to the sort of thing on the WP page. Tiredofidiots (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi -- the issue here is that all of this looks good, but is primary research, and not eligible to meet the WP:MEDRS criteria, which is explicitly designed with an abundance of caution to stop cutting-edge scientific research from being included in medical articles until it has had a chance to be digested by the wider medical community. When this research is reported on in more detail by more peer-reviewed secondary sources -- perhaps quite soon, given the apparent quality of this work -- this entire line of research will become eligible for inclusion in the article. In the meantime, it can't be used directly. However, I don't see any problem at all with adding some information taken from the review article, which can be used right now. If you can find other review articles covering the same line of research, you can reference those, too. -- The Anome (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Anome, Here is a link to a free version of the complete article for those who would like to do this work. I too have little doubt that review articles will be written soon, just because of stipulations like this. Tiredofidiots (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll read it later. -- The Anome (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Dorahy should be integrated, it is a recent review article. It shouldn't be integrated the way it was - as a "nuh-uh" article used to reference the idea that the non-trauma model is wrong. The paper didn't verify the text that accompanied it. And a pure OR observation - it doesn't seem to cite any critical sources. Piper, Merskey, Paris, Lilienfeld, none were mentioned in the references as far as I can tell. Nothing can be done about this - but it does make me dislike the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Addition to disorder definition (edit)

As I was reading through the introduction to the disorder, I realized there was one possible important aspect not mentioned. This disorder, as said in my edit, does not necessarily imply the creation of new personalities. DID is more related to bringing forward some charactheristics already existent in the patient's character. A patient may develop a "shy personality", yet in reality, it is just a shy-er version of themselves, something that might have been repressed. This is my proposed edit:

DID is a disorder of identity fragmentation, it does not imply the creation of new found personalities within the patient. Rather, the dissorder causes a separation, and forward bringing, of the different charactheristics already existing within the patient's character.[2]


References:

  1. ^ Dorahy, M. J.; Brand, B. L.; Ar, V.; Kruger, C.; Stavropoulos, P.; Martinez-Taboas, A.; Lewis-Fernandez, R.; Middleton, W. (2014). "Dissociative identity disorder: An empirical overview". Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 48 (5): 402–17. doi:10.1177/0004867414527523. PMID 24788904.
  2. ^ http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder

Vferrer00 (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

To be more accurate what you propose could be written like this: DID is a mental disorder resulting from "structural dissociation of the personality" which results in the creation of personality states that are verified by fMRI scans. Try reading Neurobiology and Treatment of Traumatic Dissociation by Lanius, Paulesn and Corrigan rather than visiting a blog for information. I went to the link you provided and what is there is correct but their terminology confused you. Memory loss means "true amnesia," as opposed to "dissociative amnesia," and it is the switching between distinct states, as has been shown on fMRI that dictates DID. What the author is trying to say is that DID is not caused by a "split in the personality." Imagine how silly that sounds to a neurologist. The personality is a group of neurons, and you can't split them. Anyway, the author is trying to point out that DID is caused by the creation of personality states, (the author used the term personalities, but with the understanding that readers know what that means. It's one of many states that make up the personality) rather than what was once thought, which is that it was caused by the silly idea that a personality could split. Tiredofidiots (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is, FMRI scans only show changes in blood flow/activity, not content. Currently you can't distinguish between, say, a switch between personalities, and a switch of attention from behaving normally to behaving in a social role. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned or referenced - just that it shouldn't be taken as absolute proof that DID is realy and caused by trauma. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Mania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C34:6A50:C3F:6ED4:6546:4DFA (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Consider adding depth through a section on cultural variations

Though I understand this to be a very Empirical article in reference to Dissociative Identity Disorder, the DSM-V clearly mentions cultural variation as an implication for clinical diagnosis. I believe as cultural sensitivity and its addition to our clinical repertoire increases, one must undoubtedly understand phenomenon which occur in other cultures that are congruent with DID.

Here is my proposed edit, to be under Society and Culture(I am an undergraduate Psychology student, currently a 4th year, and would definitely appreciate any input, I am also new to this):

Cultural Variation of DID

One of the controversial aspects of DID which was was not taken into consideration until its inclusion within the DSM-V, is possession as a cultural variation of DID.[1]

Janice Boddy from the Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto stated [2]:

Spirit Possession commonly refers to the hold exerted over a human being by external forces or entities more powerful than she. These forces may be ancestors or divinities, ghosts of foreign origin, or entities both ontologically and ethnically alien. Some societies evince multiple spirit forms. Depending on cultural and etiological context such spirits may be exorcised, or lodged in relatively permanent relationship with their host (or medium), occasionally usurping primacy of place in her body (even donning their own clothes and speaking their own languages) during bouts of possession trance.

Spirit Possession is seen in a variety of cultures around the world. Not limited to but including African traditions, African Diaspora traditions, Asian traditions, Oceanic traditions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Wicca, and Shamanism.

Main article: Spirit possession

References

  1. ^ "Highlights of Changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5" (PDF). American Psychiatric Association. 2013-05-17. Retrieved 2015-05-16.
  2. ^ Boddy, Janice (1994). "Spirit Possession Revisited: Beyond Instrumentality". Annual Review of Anthropology. 23 (23): 407. Retrieved 14 March 2015.

Beyondthecloud9 (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Beyondthecloud9 (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Those sources do not seem to make a connection between the two phenomena. Samsara 09:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Spirit possession is already mentioned in § History of the DSM diagnosis. The DSM also states that "the majority of possession states around the world are normal, usually part of spiritual practice, and do not meet criteria for dissociative identity disorder," which is why we should avoid WP:SYNTH with sources that do not explicitly mention DID (like your second source). KateWishing (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. I will reformulate the factoids I used. Even though it does mention that the majority of possession states around the world are normal, in the Highlights of Changes from the DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5 issued by APA Publishing in 2013, page 10, under Dissociative Disorders, it does state that: "Also, experiences of pathological possession in some cultures are included in the description of identity disruption". Would it then be more appropriate to delineate some of these pathological possession states as seen through empirical evidence? Or would this then be a more appropriate addition to Dissociative disorder not otherwise specified? As well as mentioning that the clinical presentation be a pathological possession rather than one attributed to culturally accepted spiritual practices involving the same? I'm having a hard time with this assignment. Thanks in advance.Beyondthecloud9 (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Per our policy against synthesizing sources, every source you cite must specifically mention DID. This material would not be appropriate in its current form for Dissociative disorder not otherwise specified, either. However, you might be able to contribute to that page by updating it with information from the DSM-5 entry for "Other Specified Dissociative Disorder". KateWishing (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Would this be a better edit then under Diagnosis? (this extract is less than 400 words so its doesnt violate APA copywrite)

Issues Affecting Diagnosis

Culture-Related

The DSM 5 elaborates on cultural background as an influence for some clinical presentations of DID.[1]

Many features of dissociative identity disorder can be influenced by the individual's cultural background. Individuals with this disorder may present with prominent medically unexplained neurological symptoms, such as non-epileptic seizures, paralyses, or sensory loss, in cultural settings were such symptoms are common. Similarly, in settings where normative possession is common (e.g., rural areas in the developing world, among certain religious groups in the United States and Europe), the fragmented identities may take the form of possessing spirits, deities, demons, animals, or mythical figures. Acculturation or prolonged intercultural contact may shape the characteristics of other identities(e.g., identities in India may speak English exclusively and wear Western clothes). Possession-form dissociative identity disorder can be distinguished from culturally accepted possession states in that the former is involuntary, distressing, uncontrollable, and often recurrent or persistent; involves conflict between the individual and his or her surrounding family, social,or work milieu; and is manifested at times and in places that violate the norms of the culture or religion.

Beyondthecloud9 (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Association], [American Psychiatry (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders : DSM-5 (5th ed. ed.). Washington [etc.]: American Psychiatric Publishing. p. 295. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

Verification in Sar et al. 2011

In § Developmental trauma the sentence

[People diagnosed with DID] report more historical psychological trauma than those diagnosed with any other mental illness.

was flagged "failed verification" in August 2012. I looked at the source, which is a secondary source, and found ample verification for the sentence: see the diff. I removed the tag and added a quote, and a reference to another section of the paper. --Thnidu (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Picture

I suggest we remove that artist's depiction. It is emotionally vivid, and I don't think that's the tone this article should set.

23chaosmosis (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

i agree zlouiemark [ T ] [ C ] 16:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Thnidu (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
23chaosmosis (talk · contribs), Zlouiemark45546 (zlouiemark) and Thnidu, what good reason is there to remove that image? "Emotionally vivid"? So are the lead images in the Major depressive disorder and Self-harm articles, respectively (as currently seen here and here). People made similar arguments for removing the cutting image from the Self-harm article; see here for an example. The IP argued, "I have taken out the picture of the injured arm because this image could be triggering to self-harmers who view this page." I reverted, stating, "The self-harm image helps people understand this mindset, is presented in an encyclopedic manner." That person showed up again as a different IP, and was reverted again. Then Fraggle81 made a hidden note about the image, which I tweaked. Doc James has also been against its removal, as seen by the "reverted again" diff-link and currently in this discussion. If there is some valid Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline rationale for removing the lead image for the Dissociative identity disorder article, then I can agree with its removal. Either way, I don't feel strongly about its removal, but I don't think that the removal should have a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationale. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
For anyone who comes across this discussion, this a link to the image for easy viewing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22 (talk · contribs) i guess it's quite a vague depiction. there's something that's not in there and there's something that shouldn't be in that abstract painting. i could give you several reasons. i know its not perfect but i dont think its necessary. zlouiemark [ T ] [ C ] 01:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The image has been present a long time. We need further discussion and consensus before we remove it. We often use abstract art for mental illness. And this is common practice in the field of psychiatry / psychology. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Zlouiemark45546, like I stated, I don't feel strongly about the image staying or going. But I prefer that it's there; images (especially lead images) usually make an article more welcoming to our readers (I'm speaking from personal experience editing this site). So, Doc James, I agree with your restoration of the image. Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@23chaosmosis, Doc James, and Flyer22: I know a number of people, both on the web and in RealSpace™:-), for whom some topics and images are potentially triggery, and other people who routinely preface their posts with trigger warnings if appropriate. This seemed to me to be a picture that could be such a trigger: though neither of the objections mentioned that explicitly, I felt that "emotionally vivid" could refer to such a quality for that writer, and so I deleted it.
But I wasn't aware of the parallel history at Self-harm. Having read your replies, I withdraw my opposition to the picture, pending possible further discussion introducing relevant new material.
(BTW, irrelevantly to the present discussion, I feel some sympathy for the IP in the Self-harm discussion. A personal history of self-harm is a very valid reason for desiring anonymity, and the different IP could very easily be simply an artifact of anonymous login, possibly from different public computers (e.g., in a library).) --Thnidu (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia fills an interesting space in publishing. We are not a self help guide for patients and we are not a medical textbook for practitioners. We are sort of a bit of both. People have tried to remove the image at vertigo as they said it made them worse. People have tried to move the image at smallpox as they felt it was unpleasant. People have tried to remove the images at Mohammad as they have been deemed culturally insensitive. People have tried to remove the images at Rorschach test as they supposedly give away the tests secrets. I think Wikipedia would be a lot less educational if we were to remove a large portions of the images.
The picture here is fairly innocuous as a trigger. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thnidu, I understand the "triggering" argument. That's why I cited an IP's "triggering" argument above. I also cited that IP's argument in this discussion at the Sexual assault talk page when debating with AThing. As you can see there, I took part of my wording from there for this dissociative identity disorder discussion. I also relented in that case, and Liesbeth98 removed the image. But "triggering" arguments are not how Wikipedia is supposed to work unless there is a valid WP:Offensive material rationale. I only relented in the case of the Sexual assault article because of the WP:Offensive material rationale that AThing put forth. Others might agree or disagree with the removal of that image. I don't care as much anymore if it stays or goes; I didn't care much then either, but, like I noted above, I think removals should be valid. Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James and Flyer22: Thanks for the explanations. As I said above, I withdraw my objections to the picture. --Thnidu (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
For future reference: Since this article is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need to WP:Ping me to it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:Thnidu :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder: An empirical overview - This needs to be added to the page

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2014, Vol. 48(5) 402 –417 DOI: 10.1177/0004867414527523 © The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav anp.sagepub.com Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 48(5) Introduction Dissociative identity disorder (DID) has an auspicious place in the archives of psychiatry. It captured the attention of many of the great 19th and early 20th century thinkers, whose ideas form the foundation of modern psychiatric thought (James, 1896 [see Taylor, 1983], Janet, 1907; Prince, 1905). More recently DID has become the subject of considerable debate (e.g. Dalenberg et al., 2012; Gleaves, 1996; McHugh and Putnam, 1995; Merskey, 1992), especially around its validity, aetiology and prevalence. Often overlooked is the empirical understanding of DID accrued over 30 years, and which Dissociative identity disorder: An empirical overview. AlF6Na3 (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

This edit by Dumb daisy has many problems, even now that a source (without page numbers) has been added for the unsourced text.

  • There's no need to use a primary source for this article when there are plenty of reviews. See WP:MEDRS.
  • All of the added text assumes one particular controversial model of DID is correct. We can cite the 2014 review, but we cannot take its controversial conclusions as fact per WP:YESPOV. Many recent sources continue to question the evidence base for the trauma model of DID, such as:
    - Lilienfeld SO, Lynn SJ (2014). "Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Contemporary Scientific Perspective". Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology. Guilford Publications. pp. 113–152. ISBN 1462517897.
    - Lynn SJ, Lilienfeld SO, Merckelbach H, Giesbrecht T, McNally RJ, Loftus EF, Bruck M, Garry M, Malaktaris A (2014). "The trauma model of dissociation: inconvenient truths and stubborn fictions. Comment on Dalenberg et al. (2012)". Psychol Bull. 140 (3): 896–910. doi:10.1037/a0035570. PMID 24773505.
    - Paris J (2012). "The rise and fall of dissociative identity disorder". J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 200 (12): 1076–9. doi:10.1097/NMD.0b013e318275d285. PMID 23197123.
    - Boysen GA, VanBergen A (2013). "A review of published research on adult dissociative identity disorder: 2000-2010". J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 201 (1): 5–11. doi:10.1097/NMD.0b013e31827aaf81. PMID 23274288.
    - Boysen GA (2011). "The scientific status of childhood dissociative identity disorder: a review of published research". Psychother Psychosom. 80 (6): 329–34. doi:10.1159/000323403. PMID 21829044.
  • Reliably sourced text from a 2012 review about the number of identities was removed because it was "irrelevant and patient reported." We should follow the sources and not decide that for ourselves.

KateWishing (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

      • Please reference the exact patients that reported 4,500 "alters" and show me that they had some clue what this person was even talking about please.Dumb daisy (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
In reply to KateWishing ultimately the DID page is a poor source for anyone attempting to find information on the subject. 2015 consensus does not support this objective as seen in the most recent review article on the subject which I have quoted and property cited in the section in which I have edited - symptoms. My knowledge of the subject is substantial and just because knowledge of other editors is lacking is not a reason I should cease to edit. The article has been traditionally sourced by primary sources including books, journal articles and even old text books which are Wikipedia approved, but are meant to portray a mainstream idea, rather than a knowledgeable one. Wikipedia does reject the most current views, and instead supports time worn stances and so do my edits. My addition of the primary source I added was to support what was already on the page and accepted, but reworded. I combined many out of place sentences for readability. The text I added that you object to is supported by the current DSM and the most current review article on the subject at hand. What was removed was subjective ideas presented by "patients with DID," which should have never been included in the article. Your POV is evident that you do not agree with the most recent review article on DID or the overall 2015 consensus on the subject, but your POV is irrelevant. If you wish to contest me, show me your references and I will read them, including all books and within one hour time I will report back to you and you can debate with me personally about what is a subjective view by those authors or not, but I will win a debate, but of course not wikipedia bullying because I don't spend more than a few minutes time here every few years, but that might change soon. Your objections keep following the same path which is the current text has historic value and so should stay no matter what, but that is not the goal of Wikipedia. I contest that subjective patient views should be eliminated from the page. I also state that I have only worked on the symptoms paragraph, and symptoms are not subjective, but you still argue subjective patient views should remain.Dumb daisy (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
In case it was missed in the paragraph above this section, this is the reference I have added and quoted in the symptoms section: Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2014, Vol. 48(5) 402 –417 DOI: 10.1177/0004867414527523 © The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav anp.sagepub.com Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 48(5) Introduction Dissociative identity disorder (DID) has an auspicious place in the archives of psychiatry. It captured the attention of many of the great 19th and early 20th century thinkers, whose ideas form the foundation of modern psychiatric thought (James, 1896 [see Taylor, 1983], Janet, 1907; Prince, 1905). More recently DID has become the subject of considerable debate (e.g. Dalenberg et al., 2012; Gleaves, 1996; McHugh and Putnam, 1995; Merskey, 1992), especially around its validity, aetiology and prevalence. Often overlooked is the empirical understanding of DID accrued over 30 years, and which Dissociative identity disorder: An empirical overview. AlF6Na3 (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Dumb daisy (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I already provided five reviews above which question the trauma model, including two from 2014. There is no "2015 consensus." DID remains as disputed as ever. Also consider WP:MEDDATE, which states "While the most-recent reviews include later research results, this does not automatically give more weight to the most recent review." KateWishing (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I never presented the "TRAUMA MODEL." I present solid facts and neurology and neurology has factual MRI scans to back up what it reports.Again I say pick a stance and stick with it. Either this page uses primary sources, secondary sources, expert authored books or it uses only old text books and the most current review article. You can't cherry pick what you want and don't want. Choose one stance.Dumb daisy (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
KateWishing email me the entire articles and books for review. I will not write on a summary of something. I must see the raw data. I take the POV of neuroscientists and not of psychologists, so I argue your standpoint. Psychology which you are quoting is subjective at best. Show me neurological scans, animal studies and the like that support your POV. According to past editors of this page the newest reviews are the most heavily weighted. If you would like to remove that POV, then I will play by the new rules. I have no problem with either stance, but pick one and stick to it. An email will be provided if necessary. Dumb daisy (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
      • KateWishing The ISSTD reports the consensus for DID. This is a reference already on the page and even used at the bottom for places to turn to for more information. https://www.isst-d.org/downloads/GUIDELINES_REVISED2011.pdf The few rouge psychologists that you mention cannot form a consensus or even a differing opinion from mine because my edits are neurological based and theirs either are not or they don't understand what they are talking about and I can prove that. Those few rogue scientists you list can state their opinion. Their opinion does not equal a consensus. It's America and we can all argue our POV, but we can't call our arguments a consensus, but AGAIN I support the view of neuroscientists and not of anyone who calls themselves a psychologist or psychiatrist. At the same time I do read all reports by psychologists and psychiatrists and then look for hard evidence in brain scans. Subjective psychology is not hard evidence.Dumb daisy (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I reverted you. We should work out these matters here at the talk page. Your content has been challenged by two different editors now, and WP:Edit warring is discouraged. You can propose changes here at the talk page, and we can debate them, and then, per WP:Consensus, add text we've agreed upon. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22 state your reason for reverting good edits. Talking on a talk page is not required for editing on Wikipedia when they are good edits and are sourced. You are in violation of Wikipedia etiquette (which exact rule I could not care less).
Dumb daisy, keep in mind that we are not debating which perspective on DID is correct. The issue is how to present both perspectives in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. You want us to present one perspective as fact, but we only do that when other views are very fringe. Scott Lilienfeld, Elizabeth Loftus, and other critics are mainstream scholars who published their reviews in mainstream venues. Many sources state that DID is one of the most controversial diagnoses in the DSM; even your 2014 review opens by noting the controversy. So we shouldn't take any particular side in Wikipedia's voice.
Lilienfeld is an expert of psychopathy and not DID. Lofus is an expert on false memory and not DID. Your case is weak and I contest it. Journal article begin with that statement that DID is contested, which I hate, but they still do it and you use it for information here, while the authors of the article usually use it to present the fact that DID is NOT controversial, but the controversy but a very few is inconsequential but it gets the researchers grant money to write and work with.Dumb daisy (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Like Flyer22 said, you can propose changes here and we can work to make them policy-compliant. KateWishing (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
KateWishing and Flyer22 both argue that the most current REVIEW article is not appropriate for this article, and that can only be because it goes against THEIR POV! Prove your point on this topic or stand down.23:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Then I propose that you both bone up on your neuroscience because from what I see this DID page is pathetic. I propose all the changes I made and a whole lot more, if I cared at all about this page, but once in a while I drop in when bored and watch what a mockery people make of Wikipedia . Make your arguments against my changes here and I will debate them with you, but it's clear your plan is just to keep me on the talk page and leave the DID Wikipedia page as it is, because that's what people like you do, and I am not making personal attacks, this is a scientific observation of Wikipedia bullying. First state your objection to the quoted section from the most recent review article that does give the most current consensuses on the subject.Dumb daisy (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

DSM-5 and 2015 Review article on DID and KateWishing & Flyer22's refusal to let me add that info to the DID page

Resolution: User:Dumb daisy has been blocked from editing

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

KateWishing and Flyer22 I have been patiently waiting, but I need actual debate on what was reverted to my edits or I will have to assume I now have the right to revert your reverts of my good edits. Please detail each point I addressed and why your POV is that the most current DSM and Review article on DID cannot be used in a WP article on DID.Dumb daisy (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I never said that the 2014 review article could not be used. You just added it in an inappropriate way. It needs to be attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ("According to a 2014 review ...", "A 2014 review concluded ...", etc.), rather than left as a raw quote. It also does not belong in the "Signs and symptoms" section; the part you quoted is more relevant to "Diagnosis" and "Causes". I might add it myself later. KateWishing (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
KateWishing A "raw quote" is the conclusion of the authors of the article and is perfectly acceptable. I agree the entire article needs updating, but I chose a section that would upset people with your obvious POV the least, since symptoms is a section where subjective views are not entertained, and so hard evidence is what I added. Revert my changes or add a better argument.Dumb daisy (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It is the opinion of the authors of the review (who are all long-term proponents of one perspective on DID). Other reliable sources have reviewed the literature and reached the opposite conclusions.[26] KateWishing (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Answering your post that you deleted: LOL, I might be a bit over qualified, but I don't yet hold a degree in DID, so I come here without those credentials and my user name attests to the idea that I am dumb. Answer this KateWishing, why would anyone that wrote a review article summarize all they found wrong in the field of DID instead of what they feel is correct? In addition, answer this. Why is it that this DID page MUST be presented in such a controversial fashion when DID has not been considered controversial since at least the year 2000, except by a few rouge researchers that like to stir up controversy so they get funding for research? I also add that any credible author or researcher today takes the view of what you call one perspective on DID. "Since you want to talk about me personally, answer this. Why do you care what my degrees are if you are not going to actually debate me on the subject of DID? I am always up for debate and I read quickly if I am supplied with information, so lets go at it but don't give me links, I want actual text. A good debate makes my day! By the way, a user page could be nothing but lies. Do you really think someone could hold so many degrees as my page says I do? Donald Duck holds them, but he swears he is smarter than me, so sometimes I borrow his degrees as my own. My page also says I'm a bit off my rocker. Does that discount my ability to edit on WP too, but now you have removed all you said about me, and that's okay, because we both know you did write it. Dumb daisy (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You say that "DID has not been considered controversial since at least the year 2000," but a 1999 survey found that "only about one-quarter of [board-certified American psychiatrists] felt that diagnoses of dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder were supported by strong evidence of scientific validity." There have not been any recent surveys of that kind, but the literature continues to bear out the controversy. KateWishing (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
And Kate, only about half of the world believes in Santa Clause too, and yet he is very real. Experts on the history of Santa Clause however understand that he is not only real but many of the myths about him were actually true. So psychiatrists, mainly educated in by antiques, or are antiques themselves are likely to not believe in Santa, but those who work with or research the DD have a deeper understanding. Your point is mute, and I do believe in Santa and I get lots of present under my tree. How about you? Now that's said, I will go and read the survey and I expect that it is something that is verifiable according to WP and can be used on this page, or I'm wasting my time. Dumb daisy (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Kate, that was a total waste of time. The article is by those rouge researchers who I mentioned do this so they can get funding: Pope HG Jr1, Oliva PS, Hudson JI, Bodkin JA, Gruber AJ. And while their supporters don't want to hear that, I know these people all to well and that is what they do. None of them are considered experts on DID. Please provide information by those who focus on DID, and are not just looking for something easy to publish, and controversy is always an easy sell, but it's disgusting to call it research. Dumb daisy (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Adding DSM-5 language is one thing. And the DSM-5, as noted in its Wikipedia article, is highly disputed by experts. Adding poor content with inappropriate language (such as "It is important to understand"), as you recently did, is another. You added that "the most current journal review article on DID states that 'existing data show DID as a complex, valid and not uncommon disorder, associated with developmental and cultural variables, that is amenable to psychotherapeutic intervention.'" So because of that review, we are supposed to believe that DID is not rare, despite all the evidence to the contrary that it is? DID is hotly contested, and that it's hotly contested is not old news. A recent review does not make it any less an extremely controversial diagnosis. It does not trump the vast majority of literature on this topic; read WP:Due weight. You should stop adding this disputed content to the article without a WP:Consensus here first. It is needless WP:Edit warring. Either way, I see that I need to alert WP:Med to this discussion. Also, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages, you should not address us directly in talk page headings. Flyer22 (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22, Are you really going to take the stance that the ultimate guide to psychology is controversial and so it cannot be used. LOL State here what is poor content that I just added. I am using language by the DSM-5, which is highly appropriate. Yes, I added a direct quote from a 2014 REVIEW journal article, which is appropriate content. I actually do believe DID is rare, but that is not the current consensus of experts that study and research DID. I only have put their stance on the page, and not my own. I would write my own page, but I would have to start by throwing this whole article in the trash and writing unreferenced because I don't agree with even one expert out there, but have no interest in changing their direction because eventually they will get it right. What evidence by an actual EXPERT (person that just writes on the DD) shows that DID does not exist? It should not be edit warring at all. I should be allowed to edit. I am using the same referencing that is found throughout the page, and in many cases used already existing referencing for ease since I know whatever I write will be instantly reverted so I don't put more than a few minutes into the work. The most current REVIEW article on the Exact Subject At Hand is NOT controversial! Oh my, I am going to court and that means more bullies will gang up on me. Perhaps I should have my entire class gang up on all of you, but that would go against WP policy wouldn't it? "you should address us directly in talk page headings." I do. I must go for the night. I am getting time off for good behavior and getting out of the basement where my computer is hiding behind boxes, because I'm not suppose to be on it! Dumb daisy (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't state that "the ultimate guide to psychology is controversial and so it cannot be used." The DSM-5 is not "the ultimate guide to psychology"; that is your personal opinion. If it were "the ultimate guide to psychology," it wouldn't be so scorned by health professionals/experts. Maybe you should read up on just how rejected the DSM-5 is. I was simply noting that it's highly disputed. And as is clear in this WP:Med DSM-5 archived discussion, we do not give the DSM-5 more weight than what the literature generally states on a topic. As for what I took issue with regarding this material, I already explained in that WP:Edit summary and above. I will now be contacting WP:Med to weigh in on this dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The DSM-5 is nothing more than a manual that reports the minimum criteria needed to Dx a mental disorder. There is nothing to be controversial about, but still people that don't understand it or want their own way will argue the fact. I helped write the DSM-5, so I know the ins and outs of it, or am I lying? hmmm... Can't have anyone too smart of WP, or it's a problem. The main outspoken person is Allen and that's because he was the chair for the DSM-IV and while I love him to death because we are blood, he is still just blowing smoke because he likes to.Dumb daisy (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that your intelligence is superior to mine, or to KateWishing's, that is a suggestion you should very much reconsider. As for your credentials, unless your medical identity is validated like Doc James's or James Cantor's (see their user pages), editors should be skeptical of you claiming a medical background, including claims of writing the DSM-5. We are familiar with Essjay types here at Wikipedia. I alerted WP:Med. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not. My IQ has never been tested, and I admit I am dumb. Doc James, white hotter that f... is just one Doc and I am skeptical of those who do not honestly study DID and as I have said I don't agree with the current consensus of DID but I certainly don't agree with the likes of those who you promote who are my friends in one life, but this is WP and our POV is irrelevant and so I promote female that has been educated by great men, the current consensus of those who are considered to be experts in the area of DID (ISSTD) are what need to be presented here. Although I don't know what an Essjay type is I am very real, very female and very much a thinking human and so I deserve some respect from you as a WP editor and while the extremely handsome Doc James is a physician I find it intolerable that you go to him for matters of psychology because that's not his area of expertise, and while I bow to his genius in medicine I don't bow to his testament of DID because in his world DID (Canada) is still a forbidden area of science because like most scientists he must abide why the whole and not by what he thinks as an individual, and while he has never delved deeply into DID, I invite him into my personal world where he and I will debate many things and he will find that I accept him and he accepts me and we will bond in ways that you cannot comprehend, and if he is afraid to do this then I apologize because I took the man for someone that wants to learn beyond what he already knows, and like Matthew, he will come to realize the truth and people like you will be discarded, because he is capable of truth where you are not or I would take you to my world and love you and teach you, but you are not teachable, but Doc James is and I already love him for that, and I need to go now because as usual I have said too much, but I have faith in you Dr. James and that's all you need to know about me.Dumb daisy (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)3
You are speaking gibberish, including when it comes to me with statements like "we will bond in ways that you cannot comprehend." Not only are you speaking gibberish, and I don't believe a word of what you state, you are incompatible with Wikipedia. Find a different place for your advocacy. Wikipedia, per WP:Advocacy, is not it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Flyer 22 some things are not meant for your ears and so discard them. What you and I have s a dilemma and it's nothing personal because I take nothing personal because I have been to Hell and back more times than you can even imagine, but I am trying to get you to understand that WP is about consensus and the ISSTD determines consensus and you are so lost in a misinformed history it's pathetic, and I want to hold your hand and bring you into 2015 but I know others have held your hand before I have and so that's impossible, and so we are opponents, but understand I am not your enemy and you and I speak the same language and as such I do love you, but I cannot abide by the old rules of those that seek to control you because I am not them and they now know who I am and they will fight me as long as they can keep their ancient lives on this earth, and they might win before they die, but I don't care because I am young and when I do die my words will be broadcast throughout the world and those are too far on the fringe will be known as nothing but idiots, as it should be, but they still have time to embrace me or at least the current consensus but I will tell the truth because no one knows it but me, and that's how history will see it. Gibberish is a tool of "skeptics," who are those you support. Now I am again locked in the basement and held for trial, so perhaps I shall return and perhaps not, but I and you will both know soon. Dumb daisy (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Dumb daisy, I would report you to WP:ANI for your highly inappropriate behavior, especially your misguided commentary at this talk page, but I'd rather not waste that much time on you. Yes, gibberish is not for my ears...or eyes. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
You are Vanished user 54564fd56f45f4dsa5f4sf5 (talk · contribs), previously known as Tylas, correct? You certainly talk like that editor (look at all of Tylas's posts on that talk page from back then); Tylas loved focusing on the ISSTD, and he (or she) would use the word skeptics like you. I never forgot that editor, since he (or she) stressed out a lot of people, especially WLU, with their POV-pushing. Flyer22 (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This "DID was found to be a complex yet valid disorder across a range of markers. It can be accurately discriminated from other disorders, especially when structured diagnostic interviews assess identity alterations and amnesia. DID is aetiologically associated with a complex combination of developmental and cultural factors, including severe childhood relational trauma." is not a signs or a symptom. Thus it was added to the wrong spot. Additionally we should be paraphrasing content not quoting sections that do not need to be quoted as their are copyright concerns to that approach. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Dumb daisy (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

State here and now what is acceptable referencing for this article and REMOVE anything that does not following these stated guidelines, and that's the rules we will play by

I contest the full REVERT by Flyer22 to my newest edit. Flyer22 says it's because of one reference & so she reverted the entire section. If you don't want to remove all the ref that you list here, then I will. Please state the rules you want to play by within 24 hours. Thank you. Dumb daisy (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I replied in the #DSM-5 and 2015 Review article on DID and KateWishing & Flyer22's refusal to let me add that info to the DID page section above; do stop creating new sections for every little revert you disagree with. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree w/ Flyer22 --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Why are you God of the talk page and I have to do as you say Flyer22? Why are you and KateWishing God of the DID page and I'm treated like an idiot. I'm a human too and you've hurt my little feelings now, so stop being so mean or I'm gonna cry. Let me be clear on something and I know it won't get through your noggin' but there is controversy about everything because people thrive on it, but the DSM-5 is the bible so to say of psychiatry and DID current consensus is not your POV and it's not mine either, but I am reporting the consensus while you are trying to trump up some make believe controversy like we are debating God, and there is no evidence for God so it's not really controversial, but there is now set in stone fMRI scans of hundreds of people with DID and so it is not controversial it is a fact and I don's disregard facts, although I don't agree with many things, I do agree with facts and the fact is there is DID and lots of folks have it, but in a world with so many I still think it's rare but my POV is irrelevant and so it yours.Dumb daisy (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4500?

re: " as many as 4,500 have been reported"

I find it difficult to believe; I cannot find this claim in the source cited. Please provide more detail and a quote. I apologize for inconvenience, but this is a really extraordinary claim. In fact, several time I witnessed vandalism of putting weird numbers in text, so I am wary. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"Within one individual, there can often be anywhere between 2 and 100 or more personalities, with approximately 50% of individuals reporting 10 or fewer distinct identities, although extreme cases of many as 4,500 alters have been reported"[27] KateWishing (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
That was Richard Kluft who reported the 4,500. It was in "The phenomenology and treatment of extremely complex multiple personality disorder" (Dissociation 1:4, 47-58). Here is a link to the abstract with a PDF link to the complete article (free) at page end. The entire Dissociation archives are free online. This may help with citations. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2016

I think it would be useful to link this page in with or cite a book written by an individual suffering with DID. It gives an alternative train of thought about the illness to the ones documented within the wikipedia page. Namely an inside perspective of the perceived mechanics of how the illness affects the sufferer. The book is called "Today I am Alice" by Alice Jaimeson. If further information is required or for feedback my email is [email protected] 194.176.105.154 (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Need reliable sources which either comment on the notability of the book or the author at the very least. Cannolis (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2016

Information is deeply biased and innaccurate. Written from point of view of false memory syndrome proponents, the majority of whom are focused on defending child abusers.


14159265358979323qazwsxedcrfv (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Psychiatrist Joel Best?

This sentence appears at the end of the first paragraph under the "Controversy" heading: "Psychiatrist Joel Best notes that the idea that a personality is capable of splitting into independent alters is an unproven assertion that is at odds with research in cognitive psychology.[39]"

Joel Best is a well-known sociologist, not a psychiatrist. I would simply change the descriptor, but I notice that the author of the cited article is a "J Paris." If the J also stands for Joel, I could see quite easily how someone could write the more familiar name Joel Best by mistake. However, I can't access the article to see where and how the claim is made, and whether it is Paris' claim or Best's. Could someone who does have access to the article see what's going on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.84.127.151 (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"Headmate"

"Headmate" links here but is not adequately explained (or in fact mentioned at all). Equinox ◑ 22:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Headmate is a term mostly out of the healthy multiplicity movement. Or, those persons with very strong DID symptoms but who don't think it is pathological. It is also used in other related subcultures. Just a synonym for alter. 2001:56A:71BC:2000:5096:DC44:E3C5:616A (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

New evidence

Repeated somewhat redundantly through the document are sections discussing the controversy, focusing on the iatrogenesis theory for the disorder.

This seems odd in light of a cultural perspective from within the healthy multiplicity community, which is sort of like the hearing voices movement but for DID. I've seen several people come and go, learning about this stuff through references to tulpas on youtube, who say they have had alters since they were three. This thoroughly disproves the assertion that there aren't people with alters coming in off the street with no clinical experience.

In addition, there is the tulpa community that is successfully producing dissociative experiences within themselves, demonstrating that therapist induced symptoms is definitely possible.

I also see no mention or link to any form of non-traumatic multiplicity. Which is surprising, but understandable if all your sources are from before 2011.

It would be useful if the article expanded on what it means by saying that dissociation is ill defined. As it stands, this is the first I've heard of this and do not see how it connects to the controversy discussed here.

There are some scientific reports on this stuff. Should the article be updated? 2001:56A:71BC:2000:F040:4E4:E494:F55F (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

We can't go on anecdotal evidence. We could mention anecdotal evidence if reliable sources do. What sources do you have? Keep the WP:MEDRS guideline in mind for sourcing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Affects 1-3% of the general population?

Regarding this sentence in the intro: "It is believed to affect between 1% and 3% of the general population, and between 1% and 5% in inpatient groups in Europe and North America."

Based on my (anecdotal) experience of the world this seems like a gross overestimation. I want to see a source for this claim.

Second part of the the sentence says that 1-5% of inpatient groups have it. Most people are not in the inpatient group, so 1-5% of a minority is hardly 1-3% of the general population.

The citation specifies pages 188–212, but the linked content only goes up to page 187.

I added a "citation needed" in edit 777067300, which was then reverted in edit 777067300.

There are two references in the body of the article. Links are for convenience only. If you cannot access the whole source from your computer please go to a library. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dissociative identity disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dissociative identity disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Partition of autobiographical memory

I just linked autobiographical memory as first found in a parenthetical in the main article text.

For my money, the partition of a.m. is worthy of mention in the article lead, because we all experience ebbs and flows in our personality structure (such that this aspect is a somewhat-relatable spectral extremis), but without becoming subject to an internal shell game where our autobiographical memory serves as the perplexed pea (which is barely relatable at best—most of us don't really believe there's anything other than imprecise precognitive ink blots hidden under the couch, either). — MaxEnt 17:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate Figure Without Source

The latter figure in this sentence simply cannot be correct: "Between 50 and 66% of patients also meet the criteria for BPD, and nearly 75% of patients with BPD also meet the criteria for DID...". As a psychologist who specializes in borderline personality disorder, this goes against all of my knowledge on this topic. The provided citation does not contain a basis for this claim: https://books.google.com/books?id=FeDHhTVZ5yMC&pg=PA497#v=onepage&q&f=false This claim should be removed if it has no proper source.

Emstason (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder/Archive_11&oldid=1143390436"