Talk:Dissociative identity disorder/Multiple personality controversy

Abuse issue
While reading this article I came to think that opinion only misses the one valid point of D.I.D./M.P.D. Which is, the validity of childhood sexual and phyical abuse. Without the ability for safety of a child to live in an abusive home there is that greater risk for many diagnosis. Without safety any and ALL defence mechanisms may be used for the loss of protection. As for recovery of memory loss at a later date for people in MOST states there is a S.O.L, Statute of Limitations for filing charges against their abusers. In this article there was mention of something no one being comfortable talking about, sexual abuse with a child. What about the child? What about their comfort level and thier ability of 'talking about it'? My question really is, with doubt about abuse happening by "real mothers and fathers" and no DSM IV diagnosis for false memory syndrome can there be an escape valve for children in their minds from horribly abusive homes? D.I.D. eliminates the value of imaginary friends DSM states this in it's diagnostic tools. How does one ecsape the horrors of rape at ages 2,3,4,and so on? --111xena 12:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure I understand what you're asking for here. Are you saying that you want things like repressed memory to be discussed more fully in this article? There are articles about sexual abuse, repressed memory, etc al. on Wikipedia already; the aim of this article isn't to re-state the contents of those articles, as they're pretty lengthy already, but to provide an overview of some of the controversies associated with the general concept of multiple personality, of which abuse/repression/etc is only one.  --Sethrenn 04:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Believers paragraph
In the Believers paragraph it is written that "Dr. Ross later reversed his position, declaring multiplicity to be "an elaborate form of pretending" and essentially agreeing with the detractors". I was wondering where the author found that information? I contacted Colin Ross (M.D., not Ph.D.) about this and his reply was "The Wikipedia statement is incorrect and has no foundation", and he told me he still supported the diagnosis of DID. So will the author of the paragraph please cite his sources? --80.170.103.216 16:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not the author of the paragraph, I just copied the text here from another article to which it was largely irrelevant.


 * I think we can safely assume that Dr Ross is likely to be unchallenged as the world's foremost expert on what he does and does not think, so the sentence is gone.


 * NB it is not uncommon for this kind of controversy to be exacerbated by people who seem to pick a well known name from a hat and then attribute their favorite "statement du jour" to them. Unless somebody takes the trouble to check, most of the time, nobody realises - EVER! Thanks for checking --Zeraeph 19:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it may not be incorrect, cause Mr Ross did change his point of view overtime, "adding water to his wine" if you know what I mean. For example in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology (1999), he declares there are 4 pathways to DID which can be combined altogether : abuse, neglect, iatrogenia, malingering. He was far less prudent in his earlier articles (late 80's, early 90's). So he may have written somewhere that, after all, DID was just role-playing. But without sources, it does seem wiser to have deleted this statement. --Rl11 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'm the one who put that quote in. It was part of a much longer statement Ross gave about how "multiple personality does not really mean there is more than one person using the body, there is only one personality," something about "the brain can only support one personality" and something about the role of denial in coping with child abuse. I believe that Ross stated this in an interview he gave around the time The Osiris Complex was published. It may even be in the book, although I am not sure about that.


 * Dr. Ross was trying to deal with the aftermath of the overdiagnosis fad, scandals and lawsuits of the period. Modern psychiatry had taken a thorough whacking in the courts and the media, and were in the process of retrenching. They changed their policy on MPD, renamed it DID, and in general tried to disconnect from the whacked-out lunacy they themselves had in large part created. Among the claims that were now considered to be ludicrous were assertions by various doctors and MPD patients (e.g., Truddi Chase and her therapist) that persons in a multiple system were people, or at least were experienced as people by the client, and in such cases integration should not be the goal of therapy, but instead cooperation should be sought. By our correspondence with some multiples who are in therapy, there are professionals today who do see group members as persons and do not insist on integration, but at the time this would have been an extremely unwise position to take.


 * I've heard from an ex-client of Ross that he is something of a politician, and will uphold any side of a controversy that seems to be favored by the majority of his colleagues. But that's hearsay. I will find that quote; it is among my things. --Bluejay Young 04:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have in fact found the entire quote: it is in Dissociative Identity Disorder: Diagnosis, Clinical Features, and Treatment. Wiley, 1997. That link will take you to a page where I reprinted his statements as they were tl;dr for this page. However, a summary would be: "alter personalities are not people. They are not even personalities... There is only one person" to think otherwise "is a dissociative delusion", "they are not people, and they exist to help the patient cope with pain." and "DID is an elaborate pretending." --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes as of 7/19/06
As of July 17, 2006, I have rewritten much of the article. As much of the content was added from the main Dissociative Identity Disorder page, it was somewhat dis-organized and contained redundant information in several sections.

I have tried very hard to make the article NPOV and impartial and to cover all aspects of the controversy. My personal views are somewhat biased towards natural/healthy multiplicity, so I have tried to keep my own bias out of it as much as I could. Please let me know if it does not seem NPOV enough and how it could be improved.

The controversies about satanic ritual abuse and recovered memory are described in extensive detail in their respective articles, which are linked from this one, so I thought it was unnecessary to go into great detail about the controversies here. I also made efforts whenever possible to distinguish the concept of multiple personalities, in the strictest sense, from controversies specifically associated with MPD therapy.

Note: I realized after posting my edits that I hadn't been logged in at the time of posting-- my IP address is shown, not my wikipedia user name. I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused-- it's me, not a random vandal. --Sethrenn 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ICD-9
Incorrect Questionable data: "The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems continues to list it as Multiple Personality Disorder." It does not in ICD-9:. Eli the Barrow-boy 21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Although it does in ICD10: Eli the Barrow-boy 22:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment: suggested merge between Multiple personality controversy and Dissociative identity disorder
Editors disagree as to whether Multiple personality controversy should be merged back into Dissociative identity disorder, from whence it came. Only four people are actively discussing the issue. Two of us are in favor of a merge (Bishonen and DreamGuy), one is against (Doczilla), and one has, I think, no strong feelings either way (Sethrenn). Obviously we need more eyeballs and more input to form anything like a consensus. Please comment below. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute
 * This is a classic POV fork IMHO. My rationale for suggesting the merge is the guideline Content forking: "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. ... POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies. ... The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion." Bishonen | talk 17:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Just FYI, you are mistaken, as the article certainly was NOT created (by me) for the reason you assert. If anything it was created to avoid an article being inappropriately biased to the point of irrelevance as the MPD controversy swamped the entire DID article. NB DID is a DSM category, MPD is not even an exact synonym. --Zeraeph 00:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, personally, I only just got here. I'm going by Sethrenn's post above, and I'm quoting the Content forking guideline. Its statement that POV forks are often created "to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts" isn't my central point, and isn't presumed to apply to all cases (that's why it says "are often created," not just "are created"). The important point is that "POV forks are undesirable" and violate WP:NPOV. Bishonen | talk 02:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
 * This is a division by topic. It doesn't have to be a division by POV. The multiple personality controversy does not equal the DID diagnosis. The articles do not inherently have to contradict each other or assert different points of view. Despite obvious overlap, they're not the same topic. The diagnosis is controversial. Whether any healthy multiplicity exists outside the diagnosis is controversial. Doczilla 04:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Comments
 * Comments
 * Comments

DID is an informational article which should represent the content of the topic as it is viewed by the orthodox medical community. The article is intended as an expose on DID as a diagnostic criteria.

MPC is a is a commentary article which should represent the position of those in contention with the orthodox view.

The two should clearly reference each other, but remain separate as they are apples and oranges...or maybe more like tangerines and tangelloes, but you get my point. No merge. DashaKat 20:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. As I've said previously, the topics are not equal. Dissociative identity disorder is a diagnostic term with specific applications according to the DSM-IV-TR. It is controversial and that needs to be mentioned. It needs to reference this controversy article. Adding stuff about "healthy multiplicity" and other issues that not directly pertinent to the DSM-IV-TR diagnosis will just muddle things. The use of the term multiple personality is not restricted to the diagnosis of the mental illness DID. And the articles are both long enough with enough distinct content that they simply read better as separate items. I still do not agree that the fork/POV argument has to apply here. You can report on both the disorder and the controversy without asserting a point of view about either. The disorder is a DSM-IV diagnosis whether you like it or not. The controversy about it and other issues of multiplicity exist whether you like it or not. (And now that I've summarized some points, I'll stay out of this so we're not just re-fighting the same disagreement that already appears above. The nominator got to have his/her say. I needed to express another side.) Doczilla 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Sorry if I seemed to arrogate some sort of authority--I tried to make it clear above that I meant for any current editors to have a parallel say to mine, per Requests for comment/Article RfC example. Where the asterisks are, in Edit mode? But please place any comments wherever you think best.) Bishonen | talk 02:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Whether or not the reason for creation of the MPD controversy article was a POV fork, it is now a separate and distinctive article.


 * The MPD controversy and the subject of multiplicity will outlive the upheavals brought by the next most pursuasive leaders in the DSM committees that battle over diagnostic criteria. These committees are not independent of the influence of big pharma, managed health care insurers and government funded treatment program policy makers - no more than drug research is without finance from these same interested bodies. DID is the child of a DSM IV committee process and its stakeholders.
 * DID is not a falsifiable scientific hypothesis - who is going to torture enough children in a controlled scientific experiment to discover if it produces DID.
 * MPD has the history, now somewhat like the mother kicked out of the DSM home to fend for herself, and she continues to thrive in the wider community.
 * I believe that multiplicity will continue to evolve in the scientific community as a core principle for understanding consciousness and identity as well as the laws of the physical space in which we think we live. Multiplicity and one of its identites are analgous to a standing wave pattern like whirlpools in a river, that can be disturbed by changes in volume, temperature and tide and found to re-appear a little way up or down stream, with a somewhat different character, Hypothesising parallel or multiple universes is one solution to some of the theoretical dilemma facing physics.
 * MPD has a literary life in fiction that ought to be available to a reader researching the subject. The DID article is unlikely to satisfy that curiosity. The MPD controversy article can continue to grow and expand as science and fiction catches up with it in ways the DID article cannot - constrained as it is by the short term politics of DSM committees and the 'mental health' industry.
 * It is not unusual to find only three or four editors involved in managing a signficant decision to merge wikipedia articles or not. Hardly representative of the wikipedia community or its readers but that is how it is, so no point in fretting about the lack of numbers for reaching a consensus. I think we have to act as if we have a fresh mind, a beginner's mind and reading these articles for the first time. Do they stand on their own? Do they illuminate the topics? Do they lead to further questions and research? As a new reader, how would our answers to those questions be different if the articles were merged or left separate? When I do that exercise, I am more confused by the article I imagine merged than the two as they now stand. So for all of the reasons above, keep them separate. --Ziji 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I created the MPD controversy article with the intention of focusing this article on the actual diagnosis is DID "as she is made" so to speak, without dismissing the various controversies over multiple personality (not entirely the same condition) that threatened to overwhelm it. However, I also find myself agreeing with all the better reasons here for keeping them seperate. --Zeraeph 00:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems not to be a correct claim that DID "is not a falsifiable scientific hypothesis". One might take a sample of patients and perform a statistical research on whether there is a statistically significant correlation between their childhood trauma and DID. There's lots of humane means to do a research; moreover, one could even imagine some kind of a Nazi group during the Third Reich to perform such an experiment using children as subjects for their mad scientists' experiments (so even theoretically, from the reductionistically scientific point of view, that's a pretty falsifiable theory). However, my opinion is that DID and Multiple personality controversy should be merged, yet the Dissociative Identity Disorder should be renamed to "Multiple personality". For instance, Russian Wikipedia article on DID/MPD is titled "Multiple personality" to cover the entire spectrum of multiple personality thematics, rather than just a psychiatric diagnosis. Eli the Barrow-boy 01:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But if you did THAT it would still, eventually and inevitably, lead to a seperate article to cover the DID diagnosis? I think all the other DSM personality disorders have their own articles by specific name.


 * How would you feel about retaining the DID article and renaming this article Multiple Personality, and redefining it as you suggest? --Zeraeph 01:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That would at least be an improvement on the present essentially incoherent situation, where the borderline between the two is supposed to be made up of two distinctions--that between MP and DID, and that between controversial and non-controversial. Those two just refuse to inhabit the same logical space. If we are to have two articles, they must certainly both have room for controversy. Bishonen | talk 02:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
 * (1) No. If we simply rename this article Multiple personality, then it will not be likely to survive an AfD because at least the current title distinguishes it from the article on the modern diagnosis DID. Because the term dissociative identity disorder replaced multiple personality disorder diagnostically, a simple multiple personality would look too much like the archaic term for DID. (2) Eli, DID is a modern diagnosis and it will have its own article. Renaming it multiple personality won't change the fact that it is the DSM-IV-TR term. (3) DID is not a personality disorder. It's a dissociative disorder. (4) The falsifiability of DID is irrelevant to its worth as an encyclopedic entry. Jehovah isn't falsifiable, and yet he/she/it totally deserves an article. Doczilla 01:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ICD-10 keeps Multiple Personality Disorder title, and ICD is accepted in most countries. They will make the next edition of ICD by 2014, but we don't want to wait till that happens, do we? I've heard some clinicists to call the phenomenon simply a Dissociative Identity, without putting a "disorder" word in the title, so the title for our article might be either Dissociative Identity, or Multiple Personality. (By the way, Dissociative Identity is as controversial as Multiple Personality, and they're equally used.) Then we can redirect Multiple Personality to Dissociative Identity, I don't really think there should be a big problem with that. Then, yes, I agree that there will be a separate article on DID/MPD-diagnosis. But since I assume that the present main article (Dissociative Identity Disorder) covers the entire scope of the phenomenon, then it would be so much easier to simply rename it, and then to move the diagnosis info into the separate article. Well, we can do it other way around, it really doesn't matter which article we rename. And my opinion's that it would be easier to shape the current DID/MPD article into the main article, and move diagnostic data into the separate article. Anyway, I doubt that there's a lot data to put into an article about the diagnosis. Eli the Barrow-boy 14:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, right, my bad, DID is, of course, a dissociative rather than personality disorder, and it has always been my hope that, one day, there will be, not only an article on dissociative disorder in general, but also on each of the dissociative disorders seperately including dissociative identity disorder, as named.
 * Add an s and you'll find the article: Dissociative disorders. Doczilla 06:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WHEW!! Thanks, I was sorta vamping there, because I was SURE it existed, then when I couldn't find it, I was getting fairly convinced I had finally flipped! :o)--Zeraeph 07:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * However multiple personality is most definately a seperate and distinct concept from DID. Not least in that it is not necessarily percieved as a disorder of any kind at all, which is at the root of most of the controversy. Renaming this article multiple personality would rather tend to steer the focus away from cult abuse and DID into more eclectic and neutral aspects of multiple personality as a social and anthropological concept. --Zeraeph 04:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Having just come from expanding the Multiplicity (disambiguation) I think a future move would be to rename the page something like Multiplicity - a property of emergent consciousness. I suspect DID will eventually be subsumed under PTSD from with which it will be shown to have greater brain imaging evidence of association than any other brain disorder.--Ziji 05:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * DID will not be subsumed under PTSD. Its cause is not its defining feature. If it even exists, it is not always reported to be caused by the kind of traumatic conditions that fit what we mean by the term PTSD. It's not even in the same category of disorders as PTSD. Many conditions whose causes involve trauma fall into other categories based on their symptoms rather than their causes. Doczilla 06:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Renaming this page Multiplicity might be a very good idea. I am inclined to agree with Doc though. I can't see DID getting subsumed under PTSD (though BPD might) it is just too different in effect, and effect is largely the focus of DSM categories, rather than cause...UNLESS they decide to disavow the whole concept of multiplicity altogether, (which, at the present time, would be unjustified, and unjustifiable) when I could see all the remaining dissociative disorders being subsumed under PTSD. --Zeraeph 07:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I introduced a number of distractions into this discussion, which are better elswhere - so my apologies. Can I return to renaming the article with a Multiplicity of consciousness type title. It would enable the article to grow in a different direction than DID and include the question of consciousness and its emergence; raise questions about what life circumstances seem to freeze a natural multiplicity into a stable duality (or more) of identity, and when that stable state becomes problematic to the person and ultimately leads to a diagnosis. The Double planet phenomena is an interesting analogy to the process of consciousness. A double planet is one where two planets orbit each other about a common center of mass that is not located within the interior of either planet.--Ziji 08:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Multiplicity is a good term for a mental phenomenon widely known as MP/DI syndromes (see my comment above). Even the word itself is too ambiguous: multiplicity of what exactly? It might be controversial as well, but I'm not sure about that. Eli the Barrow-boy 14:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A new article on multiplicity and consciousness is progressing quite nicely. Have you changed your views on multiplicity as term for mental phenomena that include 'MP/DI syndromes' in light of the discussion below, and what would you think about an idea that, in time, there might be a place for some or all of the MP controversy there?--Ziji 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was against using just one word multiplicity to define the phenomenon; and, actually, the term "multiplicity of consciousness" sounds somewhat strange to me, and I definitely like the idea, so I'll be browsing through refs more in the nearest future (if you can send me some more links and refs to my talk page, I'd appreciate that). However, I am not sure about whether it is conventional to say that "multiplicity of personality" and "multiplicity of consciousness" are interchangeable topics. It is an entirely new concept that it is not personality but consciousness that is multiple. Cf. Charles Tart's notion of discrete states of conciousness (dSC); might it be applied to multiple personality? Honestly, I don't know. My knowledge here is at the point of ignorance. The article on multiplicity of consciousness is very important, in my opinion, yet perhaps multiple personality controversy shouldn't be included merely as a subtopic. However I did change my opinion. Now I think it would probably be better to leave the current article on MP controversy as a separate article, and expand it. Maybe even rewrite it. Eli the Barrow-boy 18:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

THERE'S an idea...merge multiple personality controversy into multiplicity. I can see how that would work. --Zeraeph 02:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you got medical or academic citation for where it is "widely known" as MP/DI syndromes (you do realise that the terms "multiple personality" and "dissociative identity" mean rather different things?)? Because if so we could change the title of Multiple personality controversy to MP/DI syndromes instead? Regardless, the article on the DSM IV category Dissociative identity disorder (the existance of which, AS a DSM category, is established beyond doubt) really needs to remain a seperate entity, though, of course with reference to the controversy.--Zeraeph 16:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By "widely known" I meant the proper MPD/DID diagnosis, I didn't intent to stress the word syndrome, thanks for pointing that out. (Concerning refs I explained below) I do realize that MP and DI mean rather different thing, yet the two diagnoses of MPD and DID mean precisely the same thing. Now, the logical gap in your reasoning: if you say that the article on the DSM IV category really needs to remain a separate entity, then we should introduce a separate article on the ICD-10 category as well. We obviously don't do that, what we do is simply merging both articles into one. Therefore, by doing so, we assume that the article on Dissociative Identity Disorder diagnosis is not really an article on DSM-IV diagnosis, it is rather an article on both MPD & DID diagnoses, which are pretty identical. Therefore, you logically can't say that we should have an DPD article to remain a separate entity, since it is a DSM IV category, because in any cases it will not be a separate entity. So maybe, when speaking of such a controversial theme as a DPD/MPD, we really should not make a separate article on the diagnosis at all? Redirects from both diagnoses to the main article would work well. Well, just my 2 yen. Eli the Barrow-boy 12:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In 25 years, I have never heard the term 'Multiplicity' used in a clinical setting. Nor have I ever seen MP or DI diagnostic categorizations referred to as 'syndromes' in the literature.  Just my 2 cents! DashaKat 20:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I used the word syndrome in its descriptive meaning, rather than in defining one. Yet I could cite few non-English academic articles that call DID/MPD a syndrome. (search for dissociative identity syndrome). However, it is an occasional but obviously not widely accepted title for DPD/MPD. Eli the Barrow-boy 12:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So you were in error when you claimed the condition was "widely known as MP/DI syndromes"? Don't you think you might also be in error in assuming that Multiple personality controversy (the actual title, and topic, of this article, after all) is synonymous with both Multiple personality disorder and Dissociative identity disorder, especially when you concede that Multiple personality and Dissociative identity mean different things? It is certainly widely accepted that "disorder" and "controversy" mean very different things, so if we follow your line of reasoning, just about anything could be deemed a synonym of anything. --Zeraeph 00:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When I claimed "widely known as MP/DI syndromes" I actually meant claiming "widely known as MP/DI disorders", that's all. That was the error. But I see what you mean. Of course disorder and controversy semantically mean very different things, since they are two different sets of words referring to different terms. But Dissociative Identity and Multiple Personality are two different words, or terms, which refer to one single thing, or topic, even though the words "Multiple Personality" & "Dissociative Identity" per se presumably mean different things, but they both refer to one topic (perhaps from different angles). My opinion is that Diss. Id. Controversy article should be included into the general article about the dissociative identity phenomenon/multiple personality phenomenon, whatever title it would have. Eli the Barrow-boy 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi DashaKat, in regard to your experience of the use of multiplicity as a term in clinical settings I am sure you have forgotten multiple birth issues sometimes referred to as multiplicity. Nevertheless you have confirmed for me the absolute necessity of my getting on with writing a new article on Multiplicity of consciousness and the emergence of self. Any of those interested in the breadth of this topic in the emergence of consciousness, mind, brain and of self - please come and join in. I could do with the help of an astronomy, chemistry and quantam physics editor as well.--Ziji 23:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi back, Ziji...kindly refrain from assuming the rest of us are idiots! This is a conversation about a psychiatric condition, and therefore psychitriatric clinical nomenclature...not general medical jargon.
 * Yes, I can see how it appears I have made an asumption of idiocy - I beg you to assume good faith on my part. I stand corrected for my diversions into jargon.--Ziji 02:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the article you suggest, I'd be happy to contribute...presumably as devil's advocate. Cheers!  DashaKat 00:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do, I would love that--Ziji 02:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Gracious, as always, Ziji. Good faith taken and received.  DashaKat 10:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have begun to edit this article, primarily to improve it where I have noticed manifest shortcomings. My secondary agenda, an outcome not within my control, is to better fit it for a marriage with multiplicity should one result of this discussion be that middle path merger, leaving the DID article as she is--Ziji 05:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That really is a MUCH better idea. I have checked out the multiplicity article and it does seem a far better fit. It really does seem a far better idea to leave the DSM category articles as a set and intact. Perhaps one day there will be time to create an whole set of ICD 10 articles as well? --Zeraeph 17:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm totally on board with this! DashaKat 17:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we seem to have a clear consensus against this merge now, as well as some remarkably innovative alternative suggestions, so I have removed the tags. --Zeraeph 18:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay then! Awesome!! How about everyone take a look at this sandbox modelling for an alternative combination of multiplicity and MPD. It looks great to me and has plenty of room for locating this issue where I believe it belongs as a branch of the protoscience of consciousness--Ziji 00:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I share the consensus against merging this article with DID. While the "Multiplicity of consciousness" article is certainly more than worthy of existence, I still think that "Multipple personality controversy" should remain a separate article. Mike1981 15:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay will leave as is.--Ziji 22:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Works for me either way...--Zeraeph 00:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to see them remain separate. I suspect combining them would dilute both topics, and, therefore, ultimately do neither justice. DashaKat 13:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration re: DreamGuy.
I have opened an arbitration request on DreamGuy. Anyone who would like to contribute (in a positive, negative or neutral vein) can do so at WP:RFAR under DreamGuy. --DashaKat 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a false arbitration request, as no steps were taken to resolve any conflict (in fact his recent edits here are specifically to ignore how the conflict had already been resolved here and on the main DID article and revert to a POV-pushing one added by a suspicious first time editor (likely a sockpuppet) and Empacher (clearly from his edits merely a sockpuppet or meatpuppet). After hurling insults at me on my talk page and filing a nonsense report he wants to try to trick people here into thinking that because he made the accusation that my view should be ignored so he can bully his way into having his POV-pushing version remain. DreamGuy 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And the request was unanimously denied by the arbcom committee members who responded as out of process. Your attempt to prevail with your POV-pushing through harassment instead of working within poicies to improve the encyclopedia will not work. DreamGuy 15:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You should take your own advice, DreamGuy. 69.19.14.20 18:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I am not harassing anyone and definitely following the very important policies that are the foundation of Wikipedia, unlike others here, I have taken my own advice. DreamGuy 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Really. So you deny that you are asserting ownership of this and other articles by rolling back contributions by other editors to your "correct" versions? You also deny that you are often uncivil with editors you disagree with by using perjoratives such as "POV pushers" and "problem editors" when they are simply disagreeing with your opinions? Perhaps you should go over the most important rule here on Wikipedia before you continue running around, beating people with policies that might not always apply when it comes to improving Wikipedia. You, sir, are not always right. 66.82.9.82 20:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are just a troll... probably one of the users who got permanently banned after harassing me and hops back on with IP addresses to try to get revenge. People are POV pushers when they violate WP:NPOV policy, and problem editors when violating other rules (like the false arbitration filings and lying about RFCs). That's not my opinion, that's just a fact. DreamGuy 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The arbitration opened on DreamGuy noted in this thread was denied because I did not follow protocol, categorically not because the request was unwarranted. This statement is supported here: Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2, which is the second arbitration regarding editor conduct opened on this individual in as many years. --DashaKat 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolute nonsense. Arbitrators said it was completely unwarranted in a unanimous decision. egarding the second point, anyone can FILE an RFC, that doesn't mean anything they claim has any basis in fact, and RFC's hold no power of any sort over anyone, they are intended to be conversations. Tou shouldn't falsely portray an RFC as arbitration, because it isn't at all the same thing. You are being deceptive about what's really happening to make it sound bad. Anyone can file and RFC on anyone for any reason, that's not proof of wrongdoing by any stretch of the imagination. DreamGuy 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of multiple personality and MPD/DID in the Western world
In the last week I have been involved in a rewrite of the DID article. It is now set up with a history section. I would like to have the excellent chronology in the DID history section. How would you feel about this? If it is put over to there then it would be redundant to have it here. I am planning to write a background history to MDP/DID covering its ups and downs in the last few hundred years. This is at present a work in progress. --CloudSurfer 04:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

CIA involvement
Dr. Ross does not believe in satanic ritual abuse cults, he talks about the CIA:
 * "(...) CIA military mind control (...) - it's a completely different deal from SRA. Somewhere out there in the justice system, there may actually be objective evidence where somebody has actually busted a SRA cult. If there is, that information is not generally publicly available to us. It is a fact that we have not nailed down human ritual sacrifice cults in North America if they exist. So it's all conjecture." http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/radio/ckln01.htm.

i changed the article regarding his positions. --Peter Maffia (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Since DreamGuy deleted the changes without notice:

The lecture cited above was held on the 9th Annual Clinical Conference on Trauma and Dissociation, April 18 1996, Orange County, California. Look into this books reference list:
 * MIND CONTROL USING HOLOGRAPHY AND DISSOCIATION: A PROCESS MODEL.
 * By Murray Gillin Ph.D. Loris Gillin M. Ed (Psych), and Deva Paul. March 2000
 * http://www.angelfire.com/ca/heart7/MindControl.pdf

more sources:


 * Ethics of CIA and Military Contracting by Psychiatrists and Psychologists
 * Author: Ross, Colin A.
 * Source: Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Volume 9, Number 1, 2007, pp. 25-34(10)
 * Publisher: Springer Publishing Company
 * Abstract:
 * There have been extensive, systematic violations of human rights by American psychiatrists, psychologists, and neurosurgeons throughout the second half of the twentieth century. These violations have occurred at the leading medical schools with funding from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the U.S. military. Experiments have involved brain electrodes, LSD, hypnosis, the creation of Manchurian candidates, the development of biological, chemical, and nonlethal weapons, and the implantation of false memories and creation of amnesia. Many experiments were conducted on unwitting civilians and none involved documented consent, adequate outside review, or representation for the experimental subjects, or any meaningful follow-up. Because such still-classified mind control programs are undoubtedly ongoing, there should be disclosure requirements for psychologists and psychiatrists presenting or publishing in subject areas related to their CIA and military contracts, just as there are for civilians in relationships with drug companies.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/ehpp/2007/00000009/00000001/art00004


 * Satanic Ritual Abuse: Principles of Treatment
 * Published by University of Toronto Press
 * Page IX f:
 * "It is my opinion that many of the Satanic ritual abuse memories described by the patients i treat are confabulated and comprise things that never actually happened. However, I am cautious with this opinion because i cannot know for sure that this is correct. I assume, for the sake of discussion, that 10 per cent of the content of such memory could be historically accurate and based on distorted recall of childhood participation in small Christian cults; small isolated groups of Satanists; deviated elements of the Ku Klux Klan; Pornography; or other forms of abuse a child could misinterpret as Satanic."

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3PkKrgn2CrUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%22C.+A.+ROSS%22+CIA&ots=jzK1MNsY0L&sig=rqswCezAf-H-Wz1Yqqu6lgKilj4#PPR10,M1

--MaffiaPeter (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, forgot my pass and switched my name.


 * The CIA reference violates WP:BLP (...undoubtably ongoing...) unless published in a peer-reviewed journal as a peer-reviewed article (conference proceedings do not count). The relevance to this article is also questionable.
 * The book is just clearly irrelevant to this article; it may be appropriate in the SRA article.
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

EL added
I have added an EL on an online MPD bibliography. ResearchEditor (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

recent edit
The phrase below was added from the Merckdoc to the supporter's section of the page. It is an important part of the controversy because misdiagnosis creates the controversy in part.

"Sufferers of Dissociative Identity Disorder usually have psychiatric histories that contain three or more separate mental disorders and previous treatment failures. The disbelief of some doctors around the validity of dissociative identity disorder may also add to its misdiagnosis."

This quote in the header is OR "which has not been verified by skeptics or supporters." I have deleted this phrase. Please feel free to find a source that states this and re-add it. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The page is about the controversy, not a fork of the DID page, so should only discuss contents which directly reflect the controversy. Though the disblief about the disorder and how this affects treatment and diagnosis is legit, attention must be paid to the wording, and for God's sake, review MOS:CAPS because I should not, after this many months, be correcting the capital letters on Dissociative Identity Disorder.  The summary in the lead is appropriate, given the controversy and how it is discussed and analyzed in the body.  The lead should summarize the body, it's not necessarily referenced (in fact, references in the lead is a bad idea, as it interferes with the flow of reading).  But if you'd like, I can add the six references currently found in Multiple_personality_controversy.  Even though they aren't neccesary, because they are in the body. WLU (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement "is a controversial subject that has been neither proven by believers or disproven by skeptics" IMO, should not be in the header. It's placement in the header gives it undue weight. It is not universally agreed upon by either side. The DSM-IV-TR lists it as a disorder and there are many peer-reviewed studies that show physiological differences between alters. Even many skeptics of its existence would disagree with this statement. It would probably be a good section of the article though. ResearchEditor (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering it is a page called MPD controversy, it is absolutely appropriate to be in the lead. Do you have proof that the condition is a) proven b) disproven or c) not controversial?  If c is the truth, we need to change the page, or just redirect to DID.  It is not undue weight given the massive controversy surrounding DID and the fact that the page is called multiple personality controversy.  How is discussing the controversial status in the lead inappropriate given these conditions?  Did you want to look into a WP:3O?  Or a WP:RFC?  WLU (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement in the MPC wikipage presently says "The existence of multiple personalities within an individual personality, diagnosed as dissociative identity disorder (DID) or multiple personality disorder (MPD), is a controversial subject that has been neither proven by believers or disproven by skeptics."
 * The DSM-IV-TR states : "The essential feature of Dissociative Identity Disorder is the presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states (Criteria A) that recurrently take control of behavior (Criteria B)." (p. 526) This means that the DSM-IV-TR believes in the existence of multiple personalities.  The DSM-IV-TR also states "The number of identities reported ranges from 2 to more than 100." (p. 527)
 * There are also scientific studies showing physiological differences between alters:
 * 1: J Am Optom Assoc. 1996 Jun;67(6):327-34. Visual function in multiple personality disorder. Birnbaum MH, Thomann K. State College of Optometry, State University of New York, NY 10010, USA. "Physiologic differences across alter personality states in MPD include differences in dominant handedness, response to the same medication, allergic sensitivities, autonomic and endocrine function, EEG, VEP, and regional cerebral blood flow. Differences in visual function include variability in visual acuity, refraction, oculomotor status, visual field, color vision, corneal curvature, pupil size, and intraocular pressure in the various personality states of MPD subjects as compared to single personality controls."
 * Clin Electroencephalogr. 1990 Oct;21(4):200-9. Brain mapping in a case of multiple personality. Hughes JR, Kuhlman DT, Fichtner CG, Gruenfeld MJ. Department of Neurology, University of Illinois, Chicago 60612. "Brain maps were recorded on a patient with a multiple personality  disorder (10 alternate personalities)....Findings   that were replicated in the second session showed differences from 4   personalities, especially in theta and beta 2 frequencies on the left temporal and  right posterior regions.... Maps from S acting like some of her personalities or from a professional actress portraying the different personalities did not reveal significant differences."
 * Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1982 Jul;39(7):823-5. EEG studies of two multiple personalities and a control. Coons PM, Milstein V, Marley C. "These data suggest that EEG differences among personalities in a person with multiple personalities involve intensity of concentration, mood changes, degree of muscle tension, and duration of recording, rather than some inherent difference between the brains of persons with multiple personalities and those of normal persons." Hopefully, we can come to some sort of an agreement. If not, a 3O might be a good idea. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The DSM is a taxonomy, not a guaranteed depiction of reality. Homosexuality was considered a pathology in early DSM versions, now it's not. Did homosexuality suddently become non-pathological? No. Society and the scientific consensus changed. The DSM isn't The Truth, and it is based on journal articles and other research. DSM follows research and determines criteria, it does not describe or guarantee reality. Also the following abstracts: Newer than the EEG studies, and people can consciously change their EEGs through mediation, concentration, possibly something as simple as biting their tongue. I'm not saying DID doesn't exist, I'm saying it's controversial, and the page should reflect this in the lead. If somehow you think you can demonstrate that DID isn't controversial, then the page should be moved to History of dissociative identity disorder as the title will be incorrect. The lead and title reflects the page - if the page is called 'MPD controversy', it should discuss the controversy and aspects thereof. Having a lead that blandly asserts DID is not controversial would be bizarre, and itself contradict the name of the page. WLU (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) OBJECTIVE: The authors assessed the opinions of American psychiatrists regarding the diagnostic status and scientific validity of the DSM-IV categories of dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder. METHOD: A one-page questionnaire was mailed to a random national sample of 367 board-certified American psychiatrists. RESULTS: Three hundred one responses were received-a rate of 82%. Only about one-third of respondents replied that dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder should be included without reservations in DSM-IV; a larger proportion replied that these categories should be included only as proposed diagnoses. Only about one-quarter of respondents felt that diagnoses of dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder were supported by strong evidence of scientific validity. CONCLUSIONS: Among board-certified American psychiatrists, there currently appears to be little consensus regarding the diagnostic status or scientific validity of dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder.
 * 2) There has been an explosion of activity concerning dissociation and dissociative disorders overseas, but little interest is apparent in Australian psychiatric publications. This article aims to critically examine the current conceptualisation of dissociation and its proposed relevance to the understanding of psychopathology, in order to create discussion about these issues in Australian psychiatry. Multiple personality disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder are critically examined.
 * 3) OBJECTIVE: To examine the concept of dissociative identity disorder (DID). METHOD: We reviewed the literature. RESULTS: The literature shows that 1) there is no proof for the claim that DID results from childhood trauma; 2) the condition cannot be reliably diagnosed; 3) contrary to theory, DID cases in children are almost never reported; and 4) consistent evidence of blatant iatrogenesis appears in the practices of some of the disorder's proponents. CONCLUSIONS: DID is best understood as a culture-bound and often iatrogenic condition.
 * 4) OBJECTIVE: To compare the opinions of Canadian psychiatrists regarding dissociative disorder diagnoses with those of previously surveyed American psychiatrists. METHOD: We sent a 1-page questionnaire to a stratified representative sample of 550 Canadian psychiatrists. RESULTS: Eighty percent of Canadian psychiatrists responded. Fewer than one-third replied that dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder should be included without reservations in the DSM-IV; fewer than 1 in 7 felt that the validity of these diagnoses was supported by strong scientific evidence. French- and English-speaking Canadians had similar opinions. Overall, Canadians were significantly less accepting than Americans. CONCLUSION: Both Canadian and American psychiatrists show little consensus regarding the diagnostic status or scientific validity of dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder.
 * 5) In this second part of our review, we continue to explore the illogical nature of the arguments offered to support the concept of dissociative identity disorder (DID). We also examine the harm done to patients by DID proponents' diagnostic and treatment methods. It is shown that these practices reify the alters and thereby iatrogenically encourage patients to behave as if they have multiple selves. We next examine the factors that make impossible a reliable diagnosis of DID--for example, the unsatisfactory, vague, and elastic definition of "alter personality." Because the diagnosis is unreliable, we believe that US and Canadian courts cannot responsibly accept testimony in favour of DID. Finally, we conclude with a guess about the condition's status over the next 10 years.


 * First off, good edits today. In reply to the above, most of the studies above appear to be made or led by FMSF Advisory Board Members. Pope, Piper and Merskey are all board members. This is not to say that their data is invalid, only to show that their data or approaches may be influenced by their philosophies. Though I think you make a good point about the DSM not being a guaranteed depiction of reality, the homosexuality example is perhaps a more extreme example in this case. I don't think that the DSM would include a diagnosis of a disorder if it didn't think it existed. But IMO, you have proven there is a controversy.


 * How about this for a compromise lead sentence : "The existence of multiple personalities within an individual personality, diagnosed as dissociative identity disorder (DID) or multiple personality disorder (MPD) is consider by some to be controversial."


 * This would cover the fact that it is obviously controversial and leave the obvious to the second sentence about the DSM and ICD. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have slightly changed the first line in an attempt to find a compromise version for the page. Hopefully, this will work for the parties involved. Please feel free to suggest any further improvements. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have said repeatedly, the page is called MPD controversy. If you don't think it's controversial, move the page to history of MPD or something.  It doesn't matter who wrote the articles, they were published in peer-reviewed journals.  You think the 'pro MPD side' is the neutral party, but everyone else is biased?  Because the sides do not agree, the controversy exists.  It's a source of controversy because there's disagreement over it's existence, it's diagnosis, its prevalence, it's relationship to false memory, it's potential iatrogenesis, it's bizarre patterns across cultures (particularly its massive presence in the US and much lower rates elsewhere even in the English speaking and western world.  This section does a much better job summarizing and sourcing the debate than the whole page.  It's controversial.  Some think it's real, some think it's not, but that much disagreement playing out in scientific journals means controversy. WLU (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You make some good points above. My latest attempt at compromise did include the mention of the controversy. "The existence of multiple personalities within an individual personality, diagnosed as dissociative identity disorder (DID) or multiple personality disorder (MPD) has been considered to be a controversial subject." I have not stated that there is a neutral side in the debate here, though I do believe that the skeptical side of the debate is a minority view in the peer reviewed literature promoted primarily by FMSF board members.


 * Since it appears unlikely we will be able to agree on a compromise version to the first line, maybe we should ask for a WP:3O as you originally suggested. If you agree, one of us could go ahead with the process to start this.


 * Also, to be fair, perhaps we should change the first line back to the way it was on 3/21/08 (or something similar), pending any future change. "The existence of multiple personalities within an individual personality is diagnosed as Dissociative identity disorder (DID) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Prior to the publication of the DSM-IV, it was termed multiple personality disorder (MPD). " ResearchEditor (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As per the discussion above, I have reverted the introductory line to an older version, pending a WP:3O, which I will be requesting. Please note that I accept the word "controversy" in the header. The concern I have is with the phrase "which has not been verified by skeptics or supporters." ResearchEditor (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
I would argue that if the challenges are made by a small minority, then calling the subject "controversial" would be WP:UNDUE. The proposed wording: The existence of multiple personalities within an individual personality is diagnosed as Dissociative identity disorder (DID) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'' (DSM). Prior to the publication of the DSM-IV, it was termed multiple personality disorder (MPD). '', seems to be neutral and comprehensive.
 * Third opinion

Then, in the body of the article, if that minority viewpoint is significant enough to be mentioned, it can be added attributing the text to these that hold a different viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you here, Jossi. The challenges to DID are made by a small, vocal minority of people closely connected to extremist anti-psychotherapy groups like the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.
 * Excessive attention to "challenge/controversy" represents undue weight. I personally think that this entire article should be deleted, but if it is to remain, it should be balanced and clear about how is doing the challenging, and where they come from. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the Handbook of Psychology mentions the DID controversy, I think we can assume that this is a genuine controversy and not a media campaign by a pressure group. It can be difficult - but is not impossible - to get a reasonably balanced article on a controversy. I'd suggest that the editors aim to restrain themselves to making one edit at a time - and to edit to rephrase and improve a contribution whose phrasing they find POV rather than revert the edit. It's been the experience on Serfdom in Tibet controversy that (at least) two people with opposite perspectives are needed to get the phraseology right. Often we can't see our own bias so we need our co-editors to edit it out. Simply objecting or reverting doesn't usually get the job done but simply stagnates the page. Collaborating in active editing however can produce a page that will allow the reader to get an overview of the different opinions in the controversy. However, for this to work, the editors need to not flood the page with more material than a fellow editor can rephrase easily in one sitting. Dakinijones (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ref and partial phrase added to contemporary views section
I have added one ref and moved three to back up a partial phrase. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have gone through all of the edits and agree with some, but not with all. Some delete reliable sources that should be in the article. I will list some of my agreements and disagreements below.

The statement "others find that psychological distress in adulthood was sometimes due to repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse, and/or to other personalities formed by trauma." is a valid one to enter after the part about moral panic, because the panic theory states that social influence is the cause, this phrase contradicts this theory.

DG states that DID is not "a real thing" yet it is, even the DSM acknowledges this by listing it. Also DG states that the phrases below are not in the DSM. The DSM states the last two things on p. 527 under "Associated features and disorders." "Reports by people with DID of their past physical and sexual abuse are often confirmed by objective evidence, though." "People responsible for the acts of sexual and physical abuse might be prone to distort or deny their behavior."

The intro summary is POV. I believe this is more balanced. "The diagnosis of DID has been debated by several sources in the last hundred years. Opinions vary greatly on the topic. Some believe it is a legitimate diagnosis backed by scientific research and caused by severe abuse, while others believe it may be a product of iatrogenesis and/or social influence."

Several sources were deleted under contemporary views that were accurate. These are part of the debate and should be included.

I have changed this phrase to make it more NPOV - "It has been stated that those who believe MPD/DID is a fact..."

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

This phrase was accidentally deleted by editor Vianello "and for not having been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny."

I agree with the deletion of the Newsweek phrase. I have moved the ref to support the Watkins statement, since it is notable.

The refs you deleted under the Critics' section made the section balanced and NPOV. In wikipedia, all sections needs to be balanced as per the guidelines.

I agree with the fortea deletion and the deletion of the ELs as to balance the section.

The comment "ResearchEditor loves to push" is not a comment on content. Please read WP:NPA.

I will AGF. Please do not revert my edits in total, as this is edit warring, but instead make changes if needed and discuss them here. ResearchEditor (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, I reverted the whole of your edits. You reverting my edits in the first place was edit warring, so don't say I am not allowed to when you just did. That's hypocrisy, and just an attempt to wikilawyer your way into winning. I could have gone through and changed things that still needed to be fixed piece by piece, except for two reasons: most of your changes were completely unjustified by Wikipedia policy, and your edits introduced so many bizarre spelling errors and missing words that restoring to the old version would be far more sensible than doin g it hand by hand. I don't know what you did to make all that text get screwed up. Partly it looks like you might have copied the text from some text editor back up that lost proper spacing between some words, but it doesn't explain how so many individual letters in words would get switched around randomly. Whatever you are doing with the text you need to stop doing it and use the standard Wikipedia editing tools.


 * Secondly, I find it hard to believe some of the arguments you made above could even be made in good faith, based upon how misleading they are both about the content of changes that were made but also how they relate to the topic being discussed. I will do my best to assume good faith, but even if you made the dits in good faith it doesn't mean that they meet NPOV policy or are accurate. Let's take this step by step:


 * "The statement "others find that psychological distress in adulthood was sometimes due to repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse, and/or to other personalities formed by trauma." is a valid one to enter after the part about moral panic, because the panic theory states that social influence is the cause, this phrase contradicts this theory." I have no problem with this hypothesis being presented, but the wording does not meet NPOV policy. Arguably, saying something is "found" instead of "argued" suggests that this was an objective fact discovered instead of a hypothesis rejected by others, and the wording also suggests that both repressed memories and other personalities formed by trauma are objective facts with a real existence. This is disputed in the field. Wording it this way chooses a side. I know YOU choose that side, but Wikipedia cannot choose a side.


 * "DG states that DID is not "a real thing" yet it is, even the DSM acknowledges this by listing it." This is an absurd argument on several levels. First off, what I think isn't even an issue on the overall article, it's what experts in the field say that's important, and some of them say it ISN'T a real thing, so the claim that it is is only a POV that you are pushing. Second, a DSM listing doesn't make something real, as has already been explained to you in the past. For many years the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. Now it doesn't. Psychologists used to think hysteria was caused by a wandering uterus. Now they don't. It's not that wandering uteruses used to be real and now are not. They were never real. It just took a while for the field to accept that. Third, it's odd that you make this argument as the APA makes the DSM, and the APA says there is no way to tell the difference between "recovered" memories and false memories, and yet you are over on the articles about recovered memories ignoring what the APA says to try to push your own opinion there.


 * "The intro summary is POV. I believe this is more balanced." You gave no explanation for WHY you thought it was POV, or reasons why yours would be better. Your version is much worse, because it misses a major part of the controversy (those who believe DID is real but NOT a mental disorder, which my version included) and also is written in jargon that the average reader of the article could not interpret -- "may be a product of iatrogenesis and/or social influence" -- which is just talking around the important fact that you seem want hidden: that many experts think it is not real. Your version is much, much worse by Wikipedia policy standards.


 * "Several sources were deleted under contemporary views that were accurate. These are part of the debate and should be included." You'll have to name them, as I am looking at a comparison between the two sections and see no removed sources. I see one cited source that was used multiple times that was deemed unnecessary to be listed. All other changes I made there were to change the wording slightly so as not to be misleading (and the misleading being done there again coincidentally all pushed a particular opinion, which is against NPOV policy).


 * "I have changed this phrase to make it more NPOV - "It has been stated that those who believe MPD/DID is a fact..." I don't see anything about your phrasing (which is just the old version you had previously written that you reverted to, not a new change as you imply here) which could be said to be more NPOV. Your way was phrased awkwardly and was misleading to the facts. If you want to justify your version, please give a reason why you think your version would fit with NPOV policy.


 * "This was unsourced and I have deleted." It was in the old version and had a source. We'll have to go back and look to see who removed the old source. Instead of deleting unsourced statements you might try tagging them. Otherwise other editors could question whether it you really object to there being no source or just that you want that section removed...


 * "This phrase was accidentally deleted by editor Vianello "and for not having been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny." Please do not try to determine whether another actions were accidental or intentional. Regardless of whether that is true or not, this particular phrase absolutely is not going to stay. The source being cited for the claim that it was not rigorous scientific scrutiny is NOT FROM A SCIENTIST and in a journal not about science. You already know from discussion on related articles in which you try to use that same horribly misleading and unreliable source that that cannot be used in that way. The fact that you continue to try to use it shows to me either good faith blinded by sheer stubborn unwillingness to read or understand basic policies or clear bad faith in a calculated attempt to mislead readers to try to sway them to your POV.


 * "I agree with the deletion of the Newsweek phrase. I have moved the ref to support the Watkins statement, since it is notable." What are you arguing is notable? The Newsweek ref (that's the ref in question for the Newsweek phrase)? The Newsweek ref is NOT a Newsweek ref in the sense that it was a news story that ran in a news magazine, it's an online-only book interview. Interviews of book authors are notoriously less reliable than news stories, and this was not really in the magazine. Lots of news sources have blogs and so forth that they run under the same name that do not meet the same reliable source standards. To have looked at this source and consider it at all reliable shows either gullibility or major bias.


 * "The refs you deleted under the Critics' section made the section balanced and NPOV. In wikipedia, all sections needs to be balanced as per the guidelines." Have you even read the guidelines? Because this couldn't be further from the truth. NPOV policy prefers that we not have PRO and CON sections at all... they want the whole thing to be neutral and explain both views as the article goes along. This article does not do that, as it takes the view that it's easier to explain them separately. The problem with your version of the article is that the PRO side is very long and gets to say whatever they want with no response from the CON side, while the CON side is actually fairly short once you consider that the PRO side gets a chance to rebut everything the CON side says. That's clearly not neutral in the slightest, and I don't know how anyone could in good faith try to claim it is. To be neutral the skeptical side either has to be able to present its side without being attacked (especially in misleading ways, as the text you had there was), or be able to respond to the attacks made on it and attack claims made in the supporters' section. PICK ONE. You don't just get to have it so the view you so obviously support from your edits and your statements on this talk page ("DID is real", etc.) gets to say whatever it wants with no rebuttal and gets to try to tear down the opposition with a response. You can't get a more obvious NPOV violation than that.


 * "The comment "ResearchEditor loves to push" is not a comment on content. Please read WP:NPA." How about "ResearchEditor has previously been disciplined for POV pushing and shows no signs of stopping"? That's not a personal attack, it's pointing out that you are violating a policy. If people aren't allowed to point out when people violate policy, then policy can be enforced. It seems like you are trying to WP:WIKILAWYER your way towards having your own way. If you feel like being called a POV-pusher is an indication of bad behavior on your part, instead of complaining about it, stop pushing POV. DreamGuy (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. When one makes a comment on an editor, they are violating wikipedia policy. One can discuss a person's edits, but not the person themselves. I did not revert all of your edits, but only some of them and gave reasons on talk as to why and this is not edit warring, but part of the editing process. However, you reverted my edit in total. This could be seen as edit warring.ResearchEditor (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You may choose to pretend it was edit warring in an effort to wikilawyer, but I explained why I changed all of your edits in that one edit: because the scale of poor changes you made was off the scale, and because your edit introduced a huge number of bizarre spelling and spacing problems that would be impractical to fix by hand one by one. Now that you have done edits properly and not introduced such rampant problems, I have gone in and editing your changes one by one. I should not, here, however, that a good portion of your changes were merely to readd old sentences that I already explained above why they could not stay as you had written them. Just ignoring the criticism and putting most of it back, regardless of whether you did it as one revert or as multiple edits, is certainly edit warring. I have thoroughly explained why the sentences in question cannot stay, and especially the parts where you try to take over the skeptic section and fill it up with poorly researched anti-skeptic positions, which is an off the scale violation of NPOV policy. Once again, we CANNOT have a section for those in favor of DID in which their claims are allowed to say any old thing they came up with without the other side being able to respond and then allow people to put extensive criticism into the skeptic section. That's not even close to being fair and is an obvious slant toward the pro-DID postion. DreamGuy (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First, these are not poorly researched positions. They are from peer reviewed journals and the DSM. Second, I did change several of the phrases, including shortening some of them, looking for compromise, so this is not edit warring. However, you deleted them again. Third, I was attempting to balance the critics' section as per wiki policy. As a compromise and as per your idea above, I will move the phrases into the pro-section.


 * Peer reviewed journals can say lots of different things and disagree. The problem here is that your INTERPRETATIONS of what those studies say are poorly researched, and you very clearly seem to want to only put one side of the controversy into the article. That is edit warring, regardless of your attempts to claim otherwise. You have been banned in the past for POV-pushing through misleading comments and edit warring. Coming back under a new name and putting old highly disputed material back into the article (sometimes moving placement slightly, as if that makes a difference) over and over is the exact same behavior you did before, just an attempt to be more sneaky about it and wikilawyer the policy to say something it doesn't. You can't keep saying you're "compromising" when the edits do not do so in anything but the most minor and meaningless ways possible. Your edits have already been pointed out as misleading and policy violations by multiple editors on Satanic Ritual Abuse, recovered memory therapy and other articles. The fact that fewer editors wath this article doesn't mean that your edits are any less abusive here. Please do not try to make articles conform to your personal viewpoints, as that's a major violation of the entire point of this encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My interpretations of these sources are exact. I have asked that if you have a different interpretation of these sources to provide one. You have not. I moved the information to a different section because you stated you believed the information should not be on the skeptical side. I have asked for comments and tried different versions, this is not edit warring. Your refusal to reword reliable sources and simply to repeatedly delete them could be considered edit warring.


 * If you looked at my recent edit, you would see I added information to both sides of the argument. In essence, most of your edits have deleted a different point of view from the skeptical one, regardless of the reliability of the source and the accuracy of the content. You even deleted the fact tags I added to information that did not have references. At this point it appears that my efforts at compromise and asking for feedback as to content are not going to work. My attempts at compromise and consensus at the pages you mention above also have not worked at this point. I will however continue to work on the talk pages of those as well to find consensus. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I have asked for a WP:30 on these edits. I will temporarily restore these edits so the person writing the third opinion can see them. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A third opinion can read the history, so that's no reason to allow highly POV-pushing and inaccurate statements to remain.
 * No matter how many times you've been told, it doesn't seem to be listened to: You cannot present the arguments of individual people as if they are facts. You can't say it has been "found" that something or another is true when all it is is one study by one person whose opinions you well know are not accepted by all other people. You can't say "research shows" or "studies show" whatever when all you are doing is citing one or two studies have led to certain people with clear POV's to conclude something (what they did the study to try to justify in the first place) that is only their opinion and others disagree. Your edits are highly misleading and inaccurate. I also find it humorous that you tagged all sorts of skeptical views as needing sources when the sources were already in the article and the main DID article. You also seem to try to set up one person as being the major proponent of the theory so that your favored expert with a POV you share can attack him personally, while not even citing this person as being the major proponent and ignoring the many, many people who have been listed as supporting this position. That's also misleading. DreamGuy (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that you did not wait for the WP:30, but instead continued to edit the page. I have no problem with attributing sources, as long as this is done for all sources on the page. I tagged all unsourced statements on both sides of the debate, including two on the
 * "pro" side. Some of your edits promote an extremely skeptical view of the source by simply ::deleting peer reviewed critiques. Crook's opinion was peer reviewed, your reason for deletion is OR. Your deletion of the Ross statement (from a peer reviewed journal) is also OR. The DSM quotes deserve to stay, since they are accurate and from the DSM. ResearchEditor ::(talk) 05:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that you are trying to insist that a 3O means that only you are allowed to edit the page. Anyone who comes by to make a third opinion will be perfectly capable of reading the article history. You do not WP:OWN this page. Every time you make changes they always are primarily just edits back the the old version you wrote (with occasional extremely minor differences). You cannot ignore the clear explanations given to you and just put back your extremely misleading wording. You should know by now thanks to being blocking in the past for POV-pushing that you can't get away with this kind of behavior. You fully know what the policy is, so please follow it. If you cannot be bothered to, then of course your edits will get reverted.
 * And you just do not seem to understand what WP:OR even means. You can't just declare any editing decision you disagree with to be OR. There is no OR at all involved. That Crook mention is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards and it's inclusion gives WP:UNDUE weight to a non-expert, non-scientist with a known personal grudge against Loftus (lawsuits, harassment, all fully documented in research not done by me but well publicized all around the world and which I know you are already familiar because it's been brought up multiple times to you already on more than one article) questioning the scientific results for purely personal reasons. Your argument seems to be that the act of following WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies is somehow not following policy. You can't just pull a policy name out at random to try to justify your edits. It doesn't work that way. DreamGuy (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing / undue weight / misleading
On top of what appears to be ResearchEditor's history of misrepresenting what sources actually say, the quality of the sources he has been providing are giving majorly undue weight to minority positions (he tried to suggest in the article that well-respected researcher Elizabeth Loftus' scientific work was disputed and not respected by citing an article in a philosophy journal written by a woman who is not a scientist and who is only known at all for filing a lawsuit against Loftus and others for pointing out that her claims of being abused as a child were not supported by the evidence) and also trying to put fringe journals on par with well-respected sources. For example, he cites a journal called Dissociation to try to support many claims, often to try to dispute the APA and major scientific journals, but this "journal" was only a publication devoted to people in favor of DID and related diagnoses, and the journal folded in 1998 due to the fact that the whole field was thrown in disrepute. For these old, outdated, agenda-pushing and minor publications that were often not even trying to follow scientific protocols and allowed non-scientists to be published to be included here as if they were modern, well-respected sources that can stand toe to toe with the APA and the Psychological Bulletin and etc. is at best very misleading to readers. It also should be pointed out that RE frequently words his citations as if whatever the person who wrote the paper thought was a proven fact, when instead it was (sometimes) just one interpretation of one study that has been contradicted by others or even just an unsupported personal opinion with no study to try to support it written by a person with no credentials on the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have clearly not misrepresented sources. Your edits have clearly added an extremely skeptical opinion of what some sources state (ex:DSM). If a peer reviewed article discusses Loftus and disagrees with her, and there are several, than it deserves to be cited. I have never used the journal Dissociation to rebut any statement in the article made by the APA. So this statement in the edit above is false. Do you have any evidence at all to prove what you say above about the journal folding or is this OR also? It appears that most of the statements made in the edit above are either OR or just plain false. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't even know how to have a conversation with you when you so clearly are misrepresenting both the nature of the sources and the nature of your edits. You can't just claim any "peer-reviewed" article somehow because relevant and reliable source for any claim. The claim was made by a non-scientist who has a history of legal conflicts with the scientist in question in a PHILOSOPHY journal and cannot be used as if it were scientific criticism. The only way it can be mentioned in there is if the FULL CONTEXT of the situation is mentioned -- who the person was, her non-expert status, filing lawsuits and writing nasty things because she wanted to lash out at a scientific expert witness who called her false memories into question. Your edits are misleading in the EXTREME. If you claim that there are "several" peer reviewed articles that disagree with Loftus, then find one that's in a scientific journal by a scientist and not just some stalker in a journal that makes a habit of printing any old thing by any old person.
 * And the fact that the journal Dissociation folded is mentioned in several of the sources you allegedly consulted for this article, including Piper and etc. Asking me if I have a source either indicates you didn't actually read the ones you refer to or are deliberately trying to create time-wasting by pretending you didn't know it was real. DreamGuy (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

 * The tone of this third opinion is deliberately polemic and does not constitute a personal attack of any kind.

I after reading through the above discussion and checking some of the article history, I think that both of the editors in this dispute are focusing too much on proving their respective point, instead of writing a good encyclopaedia article. Concrete evidence for this in the last edit. I assume all parts removed by DreamGuy are insertions by ResearchEditor, and all things he adds are his own. The above to are examples you guys shouldn't really be fighting about, and serve to show that there's bad behaviour on both sides of the conflict. Some other observations:
 * The first sentence removed includes a classic example of a weasel word, namely 'often' sourced to a single source, including vague terms like "objective evidence" that sound good but are actually hollow.
 * Then, on the other hand, the next change from "Pearson" to "one source" is another classic in terms of trying to insert a point of view into the article: it moves the focus from the actual source ("Pearson") to the fact that it's (only) one source ("one source"), pushing the view that this would be a minority opinion.
 * Most of the statements under discussion are utterly incomprehensible aside from their support for a particular view. Take the sentence "DID has also been found to have consistent diagnostic features." Whether true or not, a proper encyclopaedic article on a mental disorder would discuss the specific diagnostic features one by one or by category, with remarks on their appropriateness, include some commentary from both sides, and leave the conclusion to the reader. Now, the reader gets this vague sentence where he learns nothing about the mental disorder, and only that people are apparently fighting about it. Not good. Another example is the discussion of Loftus' work in this version. So what do we learn about multiple personality disorders here? Some people apparently think this disorder isn't really a good diagnosis because people may be remembering things wrong. Ok, so how does that work then? Isn't this a problem with any psychological diagnosis? Why specifically here? We do not get to know. The only thing the reader gets is the name of a psychologist and her support for this stance, and the utterly meaningless qualification that the "applicability of conclusions" of her research is disputed.
 * The article is ridden with phrases that are specifically cited in Wikipedia policy as really bad ideas. For example, classic weasel words "some" and "can" appear in alarming counts. The rest of the article is a classic example of the things stamped with the big red "No" stamp in the guideline WP:Pro and con lists. The word NPOV appears a dozen times on this page, but I wonder if any of the editors here have read it thoroughly.

The article itself is a content fork of the main article. My suggestion for solving the problem is therefore:
 * Remove the current sections in this article, and order material by actual subject. Take the sections in dissociative identity disorder as a guideline for this. I'd advice "causes", "symptoms", etc. In this process, remember: criticism of a cause or symptom belongs in a section about that cause or symptom, not in a "criticism", "controversy" or "support" section.
 * Merge the discussion of these subjects back into the main dissociative identity disorder article.
 * Delete this article.

Replies in this section please, notification of replies here on my talk page are appreciated. Fighting on my talk page = bad idea. User:Krator (t c) 11:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with most everything you said.
 * I supported a merge a long time back. ResearchEditor (under his old name of "Abuse truth" an obvious agenda account) split it off because he didn't want any mention of controversy on the main DID article (and a huge fight ensued just to keep what's there), and now he has been fighting to remove a fair description of the controversy from even the controversy article.
 * Certainly the wording itself can be worked on, but overall my primary concerns have been not to let RE drastically misrepresent facts and sources. Improvements on individual wording can be rough to do until the article is stable enough that normal editing can go on. RE's edits have been primarily to edit war old, already-discussed as inappropriate and misleading and downright false text. I consider the current state of editing to be sort of an emergency situation where false information needs to get out and quickly. I fully support cleaning it up to make it read better also, just haven't even had a chance to get there yet. DreamGuy (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with User:Krator idea of "Remove, Merge and Delete." However it appears that DG and I may not be able to work on this harmoniously together and I would appreciate a neutral party monitoring the project.


 * The only way to describe DG's comment in the first four lines is that it is incorrect. It is true that as a new user, I did not have a good user name, but I have changed this. The rest is incorrect and I am unsure of what he is even talking about. Some of DG's edits appear to simply delete statements he does not agree with, even those from the DSM. These statements can be easily checked and verified on page 527 of the DSM. I have tried to avoid edit warring. I have brought issues to the talk page. I even asked for a WP:30 to help work this out. Would appreciate advice as to the way to find a neutral party to help with this. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to start on the first thing right away, namely ordering the material in the current article in sections by actual subject matter instead of by its position in the debate. If you cannot agree on where something belongs, please just copy it and put it in both, then resolve all disputes on the talk page later, where I'll be watching. I can't be on here 24/7. Oh, and don't delete anything, just mark it that you don't agree, and again, it will be resolved after the re-ordering is finished. User:Krator (t c) 10:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea. As soon as the page protection is over, I will try to begin working on this. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have restored the page to the way it was before this problem began. I agree with the above analysis of the phrase - "DID has also been found to have consistent diagnostic features." as well as the analysis on Loftus and the rebuttal of her. Perhaps we can begin by agreeing to delete all three of these parts, then we can continue re-ordering. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, this is just going to take forever. I don't think I should need to repeat all the arguments already made on this talk page and in edit comments, some of them 10+ times already between the number of times i had to explain them on this talk page and related talk pages of other articles RE has been editing. RE's whole strategy is just to ignore explanations, grtab unreliable sources and misrepresent them so that others have to go dig in and see what they really see and if they are really reliable. If the deal here is that we have to reargue over and over, he'll just win, especially if he just reargues the same arguments on multiple talk pages, all the while playing dumb about unreliable sources and problems already pointed out elsewhere that he is fully familiar with. DreamGuy (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that we should take time to make sure that the page is written as accurately as possible. Above I have made several concessions and I will continue to do so in order to make the page as encyclopedic as possible. It would be good to have your views DG on the above edits we will be discussing, since they will help balance the page even more. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My recent edits...
... were made per the discussion already above labeled "Sourcing / undue weight / misleading" and so forth, so they have been discussed previously. Now that ResearchEditor has been indefinitely blocked for POV pushing it was about time I did some clean up. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Healthy multiplicity
An edit comment explaining why a paragraph on the topic of health multiplicity was removed read: "Trudy Chase is not a WP:MEDRS, and her claim of healthy multiplicity seems WP:UNDUE here". I can certainly see where that argument is coming from, but, in a topic specifically about controversial views, a well known author's claims, even if not supported by any medical practitioner, should probably get some mention. The version I had was only a small paragraph, and as far as weight goes versus the overall article, that does not seem undue. Minor views only being given minor coverage and all that. But if it's a one one split here, since the section is newish (even though an old version of the article had a much larger section), one versus one is a tie with no consensus and I guess we'll stick with the status quo. DreamGuy (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be far more comfortable with the inclusion of healthy multiplicity if it had something to indicate it's more than one person who feels this way. I don't object to Chase's name being on the page, but there should be an indication that it's taken seriously even within the DID community.  Google suggests it's not, but of course the biases are there.  If someone tried to establish notability based on these sources, I would vote strong delete.  Google books doens't help much either, check out healthy multiplicity here and Brown 1999 here.  I'd say leave out healthy multiplicty in general, and Chase in particular.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)