Talk:Dissociative identity disorder/Multiple personality controversy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Abuse issue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changes as of 7/19/06 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: You should take your own advice, DreamGuy. 69.19.14.20 18:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Arbitration re: [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]].   

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chronology of multiple personality and MPD/DID in the Western world 

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

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

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

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