Talk:Multiple personality controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Sources

I request more credible psychological, sociological & psychiatrical sources to be added, if anyone can spend some time working on this article. As for me, cross-cultural studies are of especial interest. Thank you very much in advance! Eli the Barrow-boy 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the sources of the information used here can be found in the main Dissociative Identity Disorder article, as well as in the Healthy Multiplicity article and the Satanic Ritual Abuse and Repressed Memory articles. For instance, the current version of the Dissociative Identity Disorder article basically gives a more extensive version of the psychoanalytic model of multiple personality, which we summarized here.
Since all of those articles are linked from within this one, is it necessary to add a citation after every statement? That just seems to me as though it would clutter the article with redundant citations. I do understand your concern about needing to source the statements, but again, a lot of the citations come from the same articles. As for the chronology and history, we do want to go through eventually and write individual articles on all of the notable 'cases' cited.
Regarding the cross-cultural information, unfortunately, we haven't found much material on that. Part of the problem is that most of the existing cross-cultural studies focus on models and theories of multiple personality as a dissociative disorder formed in reaction to trauma, rather than simply on the concept of many selves or souls sharing a body, regardless of whether those conceptions match with the Western model. Therefore, people who report experiencing the phenomena considered in the West to be symptoms of MPD/DID will be considered multiples for the purposes of such studies, whereas people and cultures who experience multiple selves through some other paradigm in which dissociative symptoms don't figure prominently will be overlooked. We certainly will add things as we find them, however. --Sethrenn 10:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Your request for "credible psychological, sociological & psychiatrical (sic) sources" is understandable. However it is not necessary to place a "citation needed" tag after each and every sentence. It is relatively easy to list the sources of the information in this article as references or footnotes at the end of the article. The only published crosscultural study that we are aware of is Suryani and Jensen's Trance and Possession in Bali, which is already cited in the article. --Bluejay Young 01:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 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: [1] [2]. Eli the Barrow-boy 21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Although it does in ICD10: [3] Eli the Barrow-boy 22:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I removed most of the external links, especially those sites which were mere message boards or blogs. I also pared down some of the source links to cmbine them into sections. See {{Wikipedia:External links]] for the policy on links (in short, don;t have many of them, and make them as encyclopedic as possible).

I also noticed that one of the links in the supposed "criticism" section actually went to a website very heavily pro-multiplicty, so that was removed, as well as the rather self-indulgent adding of their own site to the history of MPD. It's pretty clear that someone from that website went to town on this article and slanted it quite severely. The same can be said for the main article. DreamGuy 08:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the author of the article rewrite. When I first rewrote this section last summer, I stated that I had tried to make it as NPOV as possible and would like suggestions as to how to make it more impartial, if people perceived it as being too partial. I was hoping that said discussion could come in the form of, well, discussion, rather than deciding I had gotten into this article to slant it to my own POV. I don't _want_ it to be slanted. If it is, you need to be specific about where and why. The article is about controversy, which includes not only controversy over whether multiplicity exists but over what the nature of it is. I didn't want to keep it solely to the question of "is DID a valid diagnosis."
I do agree that "don't have too many links" and "don't link to messageboards and blogs" are legitimate policies, and if someone had made the suggestion to me, I would have been willing to remove a lot of the links of my own accord.
(Also, "Multiple Personality Disorder in the Courts" is not a pro-multiplicity article. The author of that article doesn't even believe multiplicity exists except as an artifact of therapy. If you're referring to the site it's hosted on, should hosting sites really be a factor in what gets linked, though? I mean, some of the historical links went back to articles hosted on a Spiritualist site, which doesn't necessarily mean I'm endorsing a Spiritualist pov in the article.)
The problem is, as I stated in my talk comment when I originally rewrote the article, there hasn't been much attempt to distinguish the Western concepts of multiple personality disorder and dissociative identity disorder, from the concept of many persons or selves inhabiting one body in the strictest sense. There's been a lot of very legitimate criticism of the research conducted by self-proclaimed MPD specialists. However, there isn't much evidence either way on the philosophical question of whether it is possible to have more than one personality or self-- quite aside from all the issues that got tacked onto the concept of multiplicity due to the diagnostic fad.
I don't think that, in and of themselves, mentioning non-Western ideas of multiple selves, or mentioning the fact that there are people who report that they experience multiple selves as a natural state and not a disorder and that some of them have formed an online subculture, constitute an unreasonably pro-multiplicity slant. --Sethrenn 10:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"If you're referring to the site it's hosted on, should hosting sites really be a factor in what gets linked, though?"
Well, it does seem odd to present a critical essay on a site that is totally against that viewpoint... seems kind of stealthy and deceptive, though the page itself isn't bad. But that raises the question of where that article come from. If it's reprinted from elsewhere without permission it's a copyright violation, and we don't link to those normally either. If it exists on another site, one that doesn't push a POV, then that's where the link should go. And if it's not legally online elsewhere at a nonpartisan (or a partisan site for that viewpoint), then we just shouldn't have it. Certainly if the actual goal is to present a source with a critical viewpoint, there are plenty of other websites to offer.
The problem with mentioning non-Western ideas here is that you as a person with your own beliefs are trying to argue that they are related and thus diminishes the idea that having more than one personality is a mental disorder. In effect, you are promoting your own point of view in the article through your own original research, both of which go against Wikipedia policy. I note that one of your edits removed a sentence from someone arguing that the two are not related that didn't back up their own statement that they weren't, but neither can you put the info there implying that they are related without a source of your own.
If you think non-Western views are applicable here, then what you should do is quote or otherwise refer to and cite an actual outside source (i.e. not yourself, not just some website, but from a mainstream book or journal article) that makes the comparison between non-Western views and multiple personality disorder. (sorry, not signed in) 216.165.158.135 02:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your feedback. As far as the site it's hosted on, that particular article is part of a sub-section about legal controversy (how multiplicity has been viewed in the courts, etc). I believe the goal was to incorporate material on the controversial aspects of multiplicity as well. However, your point about the copyright is quite valid. I'm afraid I don't know where that article was reprinted from originally, so in the interest of not violating any copyright laws, I agree that it's proper to remove the link to the hosted version.
That article was sent to us by the author, requesting that we add it to our pages (using proper acknowledgements, of course. I should say this on the article itself). I've still got the emails. Therefore I am putting the link back in.
I'm also putting Astraea's Web back in. It was the first website to propose the idea of healthy multiplicity. It is a resource and controversy site and not a myspace. Most of the articles on it weren't even written by us. DreamGuy sources articles published in a magazine which he edits, in your articles on Jack the Ripper. Same thing. --Bluejay Young 16:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I admit that the line between simply laying out sources, and laying out sources in such a way as to suggest they point towards one's preferred conclusion, can be quite easy to cross without realizing you're doing so. I'll be more careful about that in future.
The one outside citation the article currently has to an academic work on non-Western concepts of multiplicity is to Suryani and Jensen's book on trance possession. I'm still in search of published material which mentions multiplicity in the context of Afro-Caribbean religions involving trance and possession. The primary problem is that much of what I've heard and read about it is anecdotal evidence, never published in any kind of journal or report; it seems that many researchers are a bit wary of the topic of multiplicity after all the scandals and fraud which took place. --Sethrenn 09:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Sethrenn, may I ask why you wrote this as a separate article? Did it start out as a section of the main Dissociative identity disorder page? Uh, and have you read Wikipedia:Content forking, about content forks being undesirable? To be quite frank, I would like to see this article merged (back?) into Dissociative identity disorder. In my view, the controversy about the origin, and even the existence, of the (highly controversial) disorder is a major aspect of DID, rather than being a subject in its own right. Having this article is making it difficult for editors to come to consensus about how much material the DID page should have about the controversy. Heck, I'm even having trouble coming to consensus with myself about it—not because I actually suffer from multiple personalities, but simply because the existence of this article makes the question so thorny. What do you say? Please take a look at the Content forking page, if you haven't already, and let me know what you think. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 22:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
Hi. The article was actually forked by Zeraeph in Februrary of last year-- I believe the pretext was that the controversy sections and the talk-page arguments over them were taking over the main DID article. The main DID page had essentially been turned into a longer explanation of the "therapy view" section in this article, last I checked, but we also haven't checked it in awhile.
After being forked, the article was pretty messy and disjointed because it was essentially a bunch of sections cut out of a much longer article-- that was the reason for the editing in September of last year.
However, if there are enough votes in favor of moving it back to the DID article, I'm not going to kick up a big fuss. I just hope that the kinds of arguments that caused it to be forked in the first place don't start up again. (It was pretty much what I've heard referred to as an 'edit war'-- one person comes in and changes it, another comes in and changes it back, repeat a dozen times.) Sethrenn 05:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The term multiple personality predates the diagnosis DID. The controversy has a longer history than the current diagnosis. The controversy is broader, including topics outside DID as a diagnosis, such as the concept of healthy multiplicity and other forms of multiplicity within personality. Do not rename this article. And do not merge it back into the DID article because both articles are long enough that they read much better this way. Both need more and better sources. Doczilla 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The two articles are by no means too long to be merged. While we wait for Sethrenn and others to weigh in, Doczilla, could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Content forking as I suggested? I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance of what you say about the two different names for the disorder, you'll have to elaborate. You call only DID a "diagnosis," but they're both diagnoses, see for instanc [4]. If the notion of healthy multiplicity is important, all the more reason not to hide it away under the cover of a "controversy" article. The older name, multiple personality disorder, should be a redirect to DID, as far as I can see, and should be mentioned in the DID article as being, indeed, an older/alternative name for the same diagnosis. Healthy multiplicity can have a section of its own, provided it's not too marginal for that. (The reference for it isn't very impressive.) Bishonen | talk 09:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
(1) I didn't say they're too long to merge. I said they're long enough that they read better unmerged. There's a difference. (2) Yeah, I looked at the content forking article. I don't agree that it applies here. The multiple personality controversy is about something more than the formal diagnosis of DID. The article on the DID diagnosis would be muddled by inclusion of non-diagnostic multiplicity issues. With that, they need to know that the diagnosis is controversial but not the rest of the multiplicity controversy. When my students read the DID article to learn more about the diagnosis, much of the multiple personality controversy article would confuse the issue. They get confused easily enough as it is. If they read the DID article to understand the diagnosis better, they need to know that it's controversial, but they don't have to read the rest of this. "Healthy multiplicity" is better left out of the DID article, and yet it is worth covering. Doczilla 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of a merge back. Splitting of controversial topics about subjects (in this case, the fact that it is controversial) can often lead to major POV poblems, and it's certainly happening in this case, with someone trying to use the main article to pretend there is no controversy (even if this article stays as is, the main article MUST mention the controversy and go into some detail or else the main article is simply biased) and just splitting the whole thing off so they don;t have to see it. DreamGuy 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, the DID article must mention the controversy surrounding the diagnosis. BUT this article isn't just about the diagnosis's controversy. Doczilla 23:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining what happened, Sethrenn. Actually it sounds like a textbook case of an illegitimate reason for forking. Edit wars are bad, and so people tend to go to these lengths, with the best of intentions, to avoid an edit war; but dodging NPOV and consensus is in fact worse for article quality. See WP:FORK: "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."
In an attempt to help us build consensus about the merge, I've posted the problem on Talk:Dissociative identity disorder and at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex, inviting uninvolved editors to help resolve the issue. The section below is for the new input, and for all of us to respond to it. (I followed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article RfC example in laying this out.) Note that there's a space for those of us previously involved to introduce the subject to the reviewers. I already added my piece, please add your own ASAP, and if possible please try to keep it shortish — we don't want to scare off the reviewers. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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

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 Wikipedia: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. [5] (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EL added

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

[edit] 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#Contemporary_views. 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)

<undent>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:

  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. PMID 9989574
  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. PMID 7794202
  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. PMID 15503730
  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. PMID 11441778
  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. PMID 15560314

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)

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.

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)

[edit] 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)