Talk:Dissociative identity disorder

Initial comment

I'm concerned about this topic so I started to simplify the text. maybe there's a person who wants to support. I'm not teached in BASICs and english is my second language. so it's possible that there are mistakes or that I use words which don't fit into this project. --Die wahre Shabby (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I would love to help with this. If I get too technical - point it out to me please. I know quite a bit about DID, but can get too technical at times. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 02:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I went through a simplified what I wrote and read how to write a simple page here. How does it sound now? Is anything too difficult in there? Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 02:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

This is a controversial diagnosis. This article presents only one side of the controversy as if that is the truth. Statements like "experts on DID" refer to one advocacy organization and its "Guidelines" published at [1]. This article is not neutral. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is neutral. It expresses the expert consensus of those that do study DID. Please do not start deleting and reverting and making a mess while I am trying to fix this article like you do to me on the main WP page. Please do not bring fringe and popular media to a page about a mental illness. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 21:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, please stop pushing your POV that the ISSTD is a advocacy organization. This is the organization for research in trauma and dissociation. As I have asked you so many times, please tell me your opposing organization. There is none. The ISSTD is the organization for trauma and dissociation. Why do you do this? Why are you so irrational about this? Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 22:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WLU - please explain your changes. You are making this article confusing. This is a bunch of popular media mumbo jumbo and you know better Sir. This is not a joke. DID is a serious mental health issue. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 00:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

WLU wrote: "People use the word "personality" to describe how people act, talk and dress. When talking about DID, terms like "alters" or "other personalities" are used to describe when people's behaviors change, sometimes along with how they talk, dress and what they remember. But a lot of the words used when talking about DID are not well-defined, making it hard for doctors to agree on what is being discussed. Dissociation is used to describe a lot of behaviors, from not paying attention to a person forgetting who they are (amnesia) or not responding when people call their name. Terms like personality and amnesia are also not well defined, and people disagree about what they mean." What does this have to do with a mental health article?

I've rewritten the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the body text with is all referenced. Please make small changes. One line at a time so we can work on it please. Do not change the lede without us working on the body first. Remember what you have said numerous times? Does none of that matter now? Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 02:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead I just wrote summarized the body. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead I wrote already summarized the body and I have read every single reference used on this article. It all fit. Do one line change at a time please. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 02:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The version you are reverting to is not simpler, and it is not neutral. It uses unexplained jargon, like alters, parts of the personality, infant behaviour, unitary personality sense, the long list of undefined symptoms, none of which are common-sensical.

It uses "we", a lot, which I believe is improper voice. Some of the citations are simply raw text instead of hyperlinks.

The page contains factual inaccuracies such as each personality having a unique blood pressure, heart rate and EEG. It attributes some opinions to "top researchers" while dismissing skeptics. It gives excessive weight to the ISSTD and treats it as if it were the only important voice. The statement "All the model accepted by the experts in DID say it happens because normal integration does not take place in childhood" is flat-out wrong, since there are at least two other models - iatrogenesis and the "middle position" discussed by Spiegel et al. The NPOV issues are the worst excesses here, since invariably the voice of the article not just implies but states that experts believe this, and "this" is always the traumagenic model. The description of the sociocognitive model is a caricature, and is held by "skeptics" as opposed to the "experts" who believe in the traumagenic model. In fact, it even states explicitly that "The sociocognitive (SCM) is not accepted by the experts on DID" and the only citation is to the ISSTD guidelines. The article goes on to say that clinicians simply don't know about DID and that's why it's improperly treated, when the actual discussion is far more complicated than that - too complicated for SEW. The treatment is explicitly trauma-based, and ignores that there are citations supporting the fact that there is no generally recognized treatment for DID, even experienced clinicians who work with large numbers of DID patients are not certain on what to do, or if therapy will work. The sole discussion of DID in the legal system is of one case, with no references to the multiple citations discussing the interaction between not guilty by reason of insanity and DID, malingering and suspicion in the courts. And there is a massive dump of inappropriate external links - nine links to books or articles about the traumagenic position, and none on the SCM. Links to a grassroots organization for mental health (which I doubt is appropriate, SEW redirects to en.wiki), two links to the ISSTD and an article about dissociation, not DID specifically. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Then go through and fix the raw links and the "we's." That is not a problem at all. There is a fringe in psychology itself that you keep linking to and getting information from. You need to use mainstream information. It does not have to be from the ISSTD, it does have to be from actual health care professionals to be mainstream.

• Harrison Pope - first 20 hits - all but one is medical psychiatry, not mental health. None have to do with trauma or dissociation.

• Harold Merskey - first 20 hits - one is about PTSD and the other DID, but both are criticizing the DSM diagnosis. The other 18 are about somatic disorders, fibromyalgia, and misc. other psychiatric topics, with no clear pattern I could find. No research at all on trauma or dissociation.

• Scott Lilienfeld - first 20 hits - virtually all on mental health topics, but they are dominated by a focus on "psychopaths" and people who clearly are antisocial personality disorders. No research at all on trauma or dissociation.

Should I go on? If you listen only to these people and the few others that you cite then you [a] totally avoid those whose clinical specialty is the diagnosis in question (DID), as if actual contact with the people in question somehow contaminates your thinking and [b] those who have actually done the hard thinking necessary to do actual research on these diagnoses.

I never added anything about blood pressure. The SCM is not accepted by the experts who study and treat DID. That is very true. See the reference please. What is not accurate is your portraying the people listed above as experts in DID. They are professionals, yes, but not experts on DID. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 03:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is it too complicated for this site. The English is for those that do not speak English well. The site is not for idiots. The people that read this site are just or more intelligent than you or I. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 03:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

WLU - treatment works. Read my current references by the experts that study DID. You can read the stats for yourself. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 03:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The links can be deleted, in fact, I will do so. I wish you would read mainstream information instead of the fringe/minority stuff. Things would be so much easier for everyone. You are a good editor, but you are stuck on this fringe stuff. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 03:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The page is not a finished product. It's a work in progress. Of course sections like the legal are not finished, but they do not need to be saturated with your fringe/minority POV. Please do write about legal issues and such without the fringe/minority POV. That would be a wonderful help. Odd in all these years on WP you just found simple WP when I came here. How about instead of coming here to hound me, you let the editors at this place help me make the page simple, readable and understanding or stay, but help instead of fight and hinder. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 04:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Claiming something you personally disagree with does not make it "fringe" psychology. The citations used in this version are to peer-reviewed journals and university-level textbooks. This illustrates that the ideas that you do not like are not, in fact, fringe ideas. They are quite mainstream. I'm not sure what you are supposed to be demonstrating with your bulleted list - Pope's articles are, as far as I know, the only ones of their kind used to demonstrate two statements of fact. Merskey is used twice, once to provide a second citation to a statement about lack of definitions for terms, and a second time to indicate a statement of fact. Lilienfeld is one of several authors of a 2012 textbook chapter, so singling him out serves no purpose I can see. However your statements do indicate the real issue - that you phrase an author's merit in terms of their experience with trauma and dissociation. This is evidence of your genuine objection, which is the presence of information on the page that contradicts the traumagenic model. This objection is based on your personal opinions, and the ample number of sources that can be cited to discuss the controversy indicate your personal objections are spurious. I have no objection to the traumagenic position being discussed. I vehemently object to it being discussed as the "correct" model. Your claims that non-traumagenic opinions are on the fringe, and your dismissal of my opinions on the basis of this belief, is wrong. I have repeatedly demonstrated using reliable sources that there is an active controversy, and this controversy should be at minimum alluded to, rather than the current version of proclaiming a victor. There are also several sources discussing the controversial nature of DID in the courts, and again dismissing them as "fringe" is flat-out wrong. The page should be simple, readable, and also accurate to the current debate within the scholarly and clinical fields. The page as is, is not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor fixes

I have made some minor fixes:

• links to this wikipedia can be made with two angle brackets ([[like this]])
• links to simple wiktionary: [[wikt:someterm|term]]
• I added a few links to articles we have, linking the term on the first occurrence.
• It is generally no good to refer to a citation by number, as it may change. use a ref tag instead.
• There should be no space before ref tags, as the software is not intelligent enough to remove them on its own. It simply looks odd.
• "Small" numbers, that are part of text should be written as text, not numbers. fixed a few occurrences.
• I replaced the references tag with the resp. template. This allows for two columns of references.

Things still to be done:

• We need references for the occurrence (1-5%, also for the male/female ratio)
• Part of the intro is repeated further down. This looks odd, and should be fixed; rephrase, or leave out the second time.
• Amnesia had memory loss as an explanation, the first time; further down it is explained as "time loss". The time loss part needs explaining; simply putting time loss in parentheses won't do.

All those things are stylistic, I am not able to comment on the content...--Eptalon (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My objections are obviously content-based, not stylistic. I would prefer the page be reverted to this version. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot talk about content, but before you revert to anything, please consider the changes I made. Things like removing spaces before reference tags are quite a bit of work.--Eptalon (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WLU. It will be way easier to revert to the version he recommends then essentially rewrite the article. The article on Wikipedia has many citations from reliable medical review journal articles contradicting the information in this article. The Simple Wikipedia article uses "we" etc. and needs the tagging throughout that the lede currently has now. A medical article shouldn't be a first person opinion or description of that editor's experience. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

On en.wiki I would point to BRD. Given our history with Tylas it is obvious that we will not convince her through discussion. I plan on bringing this up at dispute resolution on en.wiki. If need be I will do the same here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been working on those issues all day, on the DID page, where anyone can help instead of working on my own private version to revert all the work done here with. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 17:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I can work on fixing those things and it would be nice if others helped instead of trying to totally revert everything in order to get their fringe POV in there. WLU's version serves to confuse people about what DID is. This version serves to explain. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 15:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, the current version is more than a little problematic, and not for issues of minor formatting (the version I completed last night was a top-to-bottom rewrite and addressed the issues Eptalon raised above). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Article quality?

Hello, I just ran RENDER's Link extractor on the article (the RENDER analysis). In total, there are thirteen terms where simple has no article, and there are twenty-five where we have the article, but it is not linked.--Eptalon (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I can fix that! Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 15:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Citations in the lede

Other editors have told me it is best to leave the citations out of the lede. The citations go in the body. The body explains what DID is. The citations in the lede then are just a repeat of the citations in the body.

WLU has argued this with others that have come to edit the DID page, but so far he is the only one I know that insists on this.

Others say it makes the article look like a battle ground. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 15:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Evolution is an example where you find citations in the lead section/intro; the places where they are definitely out of place are section headings. Citations in image captions are debatable; in other templates/boxes they are ok. The problem remains though that if you claim than 2-5% of the population are affected, you need to give a source for that. This is basically the case for all the places where you find a {{fact}} template; see here. You work WITH other editors to improve the article; you do not work AGAINST them.--Eptalon (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I can put them in the lede. I love the evolution article here on Simple Wiki! That is was my model for working on this article. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 16:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Do not revert the entire work to put back in tags.

Mathew - If they were removed during all the reversions, just put them back. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 17:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance tags without fixing the problem

• Please do not remove the maintenance tags placed there by Eptalon without fixing the problems. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• You can't use quotes anywhere, including the lede without a citation. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The work on the page by Eptalon has been very helpful! Thank you Eptalon. I think I have addressed all your concerns, but I am still working to see if I missed any. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 18:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

Where is there a quote without a citation? Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 18:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In the lede: "florid switching", "parts of the personality", "time loss" do not have citations. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will find you some for those. So every time we put quotes around a word, you want a link. Whatever. I can do that, but seems rather excessive. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 18:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Looked at the first one. It does reference the DSM. "parts of the personality" (alters).[1] If you mean we are suppose to use the exact terms, the terms used by DID researchers and just assume that those readers here will know what they mean, that is going to lead to confusing people. Is this your point. You want to confuse. You do not want to explain what DID really is? Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 18:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Those look more like scare quotes than direct quotes, my objection to them is that they aren't standard or universally accepted terms, nor are they readily understandable without context, definition or wikilink. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Page numbers

Now page numbers too? Luckily I have all those. I can add them. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 18:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are all done. Would you like page numbers for every reference on this article. I can do that shortly if you wish. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 18:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Okey dokey - so we don't care about using technical words here. Got it. I sure wish you would make up your mind. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 19:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

if you use quotes, the quote must be exactly what the citated work says - you can't rephrase it as you have done in the lede

The DSM is paraphrased, yet your paraphrases are put in quotes and attributed to the DSM. For example, the DSM never uses "florid switching" or "parts of the personality". The citations are not correct. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Page 527 in DSM -- was False Memory

This DID page is not a topic about false memory. Please quit adding it. This is a personal POV. Yes, false memory is true, but it has nothing to do with this page. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 19:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not a statement about false memory, that's a summary of what the DSM says. I think it is too much detail for a SEW article, I think we're much better off simply noting that there is a controversy, sketching the opinions on each side, and leaving it at that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it in the section about DID in the DSM or a totally separate section. Page number please. I do have my new copy of the DSM IV TR in my lap. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 19:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Page 527. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Page 527 says "There may be loss of memory not only for recurrent periods of time, but also an overall loss of biographical memory for some extended period of childhood, adolescence, or even adulthood."

That is time loss. I see no mention of false memory arguments or false memory at all. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 00:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not the section of the page Mathew's edit was referring to. The point Mathew was adding was not about false memories. It paraphrased the DSM by saying childhood memories are unreliable [2]. You are the only person who equates that with false memories, nobody else has brought that up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Mathew's comment is fine, it just needed to be moved. I have no clue what you are talking about. Time Loss, is present day loss of time which happens when one alter takes over for another. This is not about what a child can recall at all. Do not confuse the two. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 13:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You titled and opened the section by talking about false memory, then asked which page of the DSM dealt with false memories. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation templates

Note that though {{cite pmid}} and {{cite doi}} do not work on SEW, the other citation templates like {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}} are fully functional. This means we can link to webpages, google books and pubmed directly, which seems like a good thing. Rather than pasting raw text into the page, I suggest using templates or something with equivalent utility. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Bringing another POV to the DID article

False memory is a subject all by itself. I dont support it or argue against it. What I do argue is that is does not belong in an article on DID. I do not want to get into a debate about the validity of childhood memory. It simply does not belong here. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 19:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If it has any relevance, mention it, and create an article about it? - What does EnWP do? --Eptalon (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Create False memory syndrome based on en:False memory syndrome? --Eptalon (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! I totally agree with Eptalon! ::They would create a new article about it. This is what is and should be done. If someones childhood memory is accurate or not has nothing to do with whether they have DID or not. This is getting into blaming and accusing - the victim trying to remember who abused them, neglected them, etc... If the child remembers who their abuser(s) were or not is not the topic of this article. This article is about what DID is. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 20:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, The false memory The false memory syndrome foundation dissolved on December 31, 2019. Second of all, the people that ran that thing were abusers themselves, and the only reason they made it up is to avoid going to jail. Here is a quote from did-research.com: “ The FMSF has a dark past; its founders, Peter and Pamela Freyd, created the organization after their daughter, Jennifer Freyd, privately accused Peter of sexually abusing her as a child. Various other "scientific" board members of the FMSF included: celebrity magician James Randi; Underwager, who was an expert witness in many court cases in defense of those accused of abuse, opposed child protections, and stated on record that the majority of women reported that abuse was "good for them"; Underwager's wife, Wakefield, who together with Underwager gave an interview to a pro-pedophilia magazine in which they implied that pedophilia is sanctioned by God; and Hochman, who implied that women in treatment for sexual abuse are looking for a "cry-baby solution" and to blame all of their problems on someone else (McMaugh & Middleton, 2020).⁶ Loftus is perhaps the most well known FMSF member due to serving as an expert witness for hundreds of defendants, including for high profile convicted child abusers Jerry Sandusky and Harvey Weinstein, murderer Ted Bundy, and sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell.” Do you want to support something these terrible people supported? Seriously? 71.46.227.2 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Just look here: https://did-research.org/controversy/repression/fms scroll to the part where it starts talking about SMSF and just read. 71.46.227.2 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
As I understand, DID can result from traumatic situations (in childhood). Part of a strategy of coping with what happened is to "construct memories"; in this context, it might be useful to mention, that such false memories can occur in people suffering from DID. To explain in detail what false memories are is the task of the false memory article.--Eptalon (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but should it be in the lede where it is confusing. Right up front, it's accusing those with DID of lying. This is the POV that Mathew and WLU want to present and it's a tactic to confuse the readers. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not qualified to speak about specifics (I am not in the medical profession, nor do I know anything about the illness). The lead is generally to give a summary of what follows. If this is important enough to say that you can't do without in the first ten lines, then put it in the lead, otherwise mention it elsewhere. But please agree with Mathew and WLU. You should be writing this together, after all... --Eptalon (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The way it is now works for me. I did not mean to remove the citation Mathew. Not sure how that happened. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 22:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Though there are sources linking doubt about DID to FMS, the newer critical sources are not explicit about it and usually don't mention it at all. I do not think FMS or the FMSF needs to be discussed on this page, though the doubts and questions about the etiology and development of DID do. The two are not synonymous. The accuracy of childhood recall of abuse is an issue in DID, though it is one of many details in a complicated debate about a controversial mental disorder. I am not familiar enough with SEW to know the level of detail usually found, my naive impression is that such a level of specificity is unwarranted. Eptalon, note that there are many reliable sources arguing for and against the traumagenic hypothesis. It is not clear which is the more mainstream position and the issues certainly are not settled. Even the en.wiki DID page, which is many times longer with over 70 references does not contain anything resembling a conclusion on this point.

Noting the SCM exists and is a significant part of the scholarly discussion about DID is not the same thing as accusing people diagnosed with DID of lying. That is a grotesque and insulting caricature of my edits, which are based on reliable sources - not my personal opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am glad we agree to leave that whole false memory mess out of the paper on DID! Thank you!!!!! Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is now a Political Fight instead of an explanation of what DID is

Please do not copy things to the lede here just because they are in the en Wiki. This lede summarized the body. To just add things messes up the article. Add new information to the body, not the lede. The definition of SCM is good though. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 17:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This article has now been turned into a back and forth article. It no longer explains what DID is. Instead it's a political argument. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 17:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Both pages should reflect the debate in the scholarly community, just at different levels of detail and complexity. The point you refuse to accept, here and on en.wiki, is that there is a debate, and a bitter one, on DID. It is controversial, the traumagenic theory is not universally accepted, and the ISSTD is not seen as the consensus statement. And even if it were, dissenting opinions should be recognized.

The article is a back and forth article because the literature is still in flux and goes back and forth. This is appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I concede. There is a debate! The idiots (prof skeptics of many points in psychology) VS the experts (the ones that actually study DID). I will be back later with proof of this point. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 16:37, 20 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, not so much WP simple, but it is being brought here now and that is really sad! Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 18:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

My question is - if the en.wiki community reviews the evidence and decides that in fact the SCM should be discussed as a serious, reasonable alternative to the traumagenic model, will you repeat your claims here? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The WP community are not experts in DID, simply report the consensus of the experts on DID and reduce the skeptics debate to one paragraph and I will concede. If you must control the page, then do so, but please report accurate information - not the stuff you report on all the pop culture pages about DID that you edit. In fact Sir, since I do respect your intelligence and your talents as a WP editor, instead of confronting you - I would support you. It's simple. Report the expert consensus as the expert consensus and the minority skeptic POV as such. That is all I ask. Tylas ♫ ♥✫ 00:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't my question, but it looks like I have an answer - you care more about your POV being presented than you do about any answer the dispute resolution mechanisms might turn up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk more about the theory of structural dissociation

You did not talk much about the theory of structural dissociation and should consider adding more. I also feel that this article is bias because it doesn’t have much supporting the trauma theory but instead supports the other ones. The article should be unbiased and you can do that by explaining the theory of structural dissociation/trauma theory (as you call it) more. 71.46.227.2 (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

A website that may help is this: https://did-research.org/origin/structural_dissociation/ 71.46.227.2 (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The cause of DID: Why can’t it be both?

This website talks about Iatrogenic, Sociocognitive, and traumagenic DID and claims that there is cases of all of them, although Iatrogenic and Sociocognitive DID is much more rare. https://did-research.org/controversy/iatrogenic 71.46.227.2 (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)