Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:30, 30 June 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dissociative identity disorder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Psychology B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives
Start to December, 2004 January-December, 2005 January-February, 2006 February-December, 2006 January-October, 2007 November, 2007 – August, 2008 September, 2008-January, 2012 January, 2012 - present /Multiple personality controversy

Clean list of sources

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

Iatrogenic model has been renamed "sociocognitive", google scholar search

• Farrell, 2011, Dissociative Identity Disorder: Medicolegal Challenges pdf
• Boysen, 2011, The scientific status of childhood dissociative identity disorder: a review of published research
• Foote, 2008, Dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia: differential diagnosis and theoretical issues
• Manning 2009, Convergent paradigms for visual neuroscience and dissociative identity disorder
• Brand et al. 2011, A survey of practices and recommended treatment interventions among expert therapists...

Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1037/a0026487, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1037/a0026487 instead.

• Drob et al, 2009, Clinical and conceptual problems in the attribution of malingering in forensic evaluations.
• Lowenstein, in Vermetten et al., 2007 (ISBN 158562196X), Traumatic dissociation: neurobiology and treatment
• Weiner & Craighead, 2010, The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology
• - ISSTD advising against "truth serum" interviews
• NPR story, probably better for looking into sources rather than actual citation
• Ross, 2009, Errors of logic and scholarship concerning dissociative identity disorder (addresses Piper and Mersky)
• Kluft, 2007, The older female patient with a complex chronic dissociative disorder.
• Korol, 2008, Familial and social support as protective factors against the development of dissociative identity disorder.
• Clancy, 2010, The Trauma Myth ISBN 046501688X
• Lilienfeld & Lynn, 2003, Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (chapter 5)
• Lilienfeld, 2011, Distinguishing Scientific From Pseudoscientific Psychotherapies (possibly useful)
• MacDonald, 2008, Dissociative disorders unclear? Think ‘rainbows from pain blows’
• Kring, 2009, Abnormal psychology
• Lynn et al. 2010, Dissociation and dissociative identity disorder: Treatment guidelines and cautions
• 2008 Singh, A study in dualism: The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
• 2001 Sutker, Comprehensive handbook of psychopathology
• 2006 Rieber, The bifurcation of the self
• 2011 Tavris, Multiple Personality Deception
• Bravman, 2010, Controversy: Dissociative Identity Disorder
• 1997, Lewis et al. Objective documentation of child abuse and dissociation in 12 murderers with dissociative identity disorder
• Merckelbach
• Cardena E; Gleaves DH (2007). "Dissociative Disorders". In Hersen M; Turner SM; Beidel DC (ed.). Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 473-503. ISBN 978-0-471-74584-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref>

Paranoia

I can't see a reason to remove "paranoia" from the list of signs and symptoms. There's a source, is it misrepresented? A brief search on google found several other more recent sources also citing paranoia as something expressed by patients with DID, suggesting it's still a concern. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that a discussion about this is occurring at User talk:Tylas#Paranoia, but I will attempt to move it here so more editors can comment. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Show me some GOOD research that paranoia is a symptom of DID - not fringe stuff. Nowhere have I ever seen paranoia listed as a symptom of DID - and I do read the research of experts and avoid fringe ideas. It is certainly not a common or widely accepted symptom of DID. Are you again going to stop each and EVERY change I try and make to the DID article? It's suppose to be a group work. Not a WLU (and friends that support him) article. Why do I threaten you so much! ~ty (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you define "good" research? Becuase it sounds like by "good" you mean "research I already agree with". WP:FRINGE specifies nonmainstream sources like self-published books. Psychiatry, where Ellason, Ross & Fuchs published their article, does not seem to be such a journal. My threshold for sources is whether they are reliable.

Articles on wikipedia are written in accordance with the policies and guidelines. Editors who ignore these policies and guidelines, particularly to push specific points of view, often get blocked. The P&G exist to ensure a higher quality of article that represents all relevant aspects of a topic, not just the ones certain editors like. The P&G are the rules to ensure editors can agree that even if they dislike a specific aspect of a topic, there is a way to determine if it should be included and how. For instance, I have undone your change to the DSM-V section because the rationale tab of the APA page which specifies both conversion and somatoform disorders. I'm not targetting your edits any more than I am any other editor - but your edits to date tend to have rather egregious flaws. You don't threaten me, you're an inexperienced editor who has a tendency to edit in accordance to your personal beliefs rather than what reliable sources say. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't start preaching that crap to me again! I saw how Misplaced Pages works! You get your buddies all together and force your agenda! I have no doubt that you will try and get me blocked. It fits your pattern. If you can't win, go to your friends. Good research is mainstream! Not that by a few people that try to discredit something. I don't threaten you as a wikipedia editor, no - but I do as someone that really has DID and knows what you are and you can't handle that. Check the link to the updated DSM 5 criteria. You will see that my edit is NOT what you claim. It is a correct edit. He he... Paranoia is a great title for this section. ~ty (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you accept that Psychiatry is not a fringe source? Do you accept that it is in fact a reliable source? Rather than again resorting to personal attacks and assuming bad faith, why not address my substantive points? It means that sometimes the page will contain information that you personally disagree with - but it also ensures that well-sourced information you agree with will remain. Note that I have not contacted any other editors, thus arguing against me trying to "gang up on you with my buddies". All I'm trying to do is show why I am editing the way I am, and asking you to adhere to the same sets of rules and guidelines. Hardly unreasonable. I don't give a shit whether or not you have DID, I'm just asking you to edit in accordance with wikipedia's rules. That is hardly unreasonable. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC

There is NO assuming here! I have already been your victim! Both edits I made are correct. It does not matter what I agree with. I might have my own ideas of how the DSM 5 should be, but I posted what IS! Also Paranoia is not an acceptable symptom of DID. You have it confused with Schizophrenia. I have presented evidence. You are just sticking to your same old arguments. No one is right but WLU.~ty (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What evidence have you presented? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You have not contacted them YET! But you did already threaten to take me to the Admin board where many of them hang out.~ty (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand the difference between content and behaviour issues. I asked you to remove a rather egregious personal attack from your talk page; if you don't, I will raise this behavioural issue at ANI. The content discussion is happening now, and like most of my efforts to date it consists of an attempt to get you to read and understand our content policies. I see no need to bring the content issues up at ANI. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It was already removed before you posted this threat to me. Yes, I do know the difference between behavior and content issues. That has been on my page for a very long time and you did not care until I came back to edit. ~ty (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ty, I personally wrote like 90% of that section now, and I assure you that reference is correct. Also, in my personal experience (which doesn't mean jack shit on wikipedia), I have experienced paranoia as a symptom of my DD. Paranoia doesn't have to be a psychotic symptom. Have you never thought someone was talking to you behind your back, or unreasonably feared that a past abuser would somehow come back from the dead (or whatever)? That is paranoia. It should be on the list unless you can prove that the citing is incorrect. Feel free to do that. I do not have my articles anymore unfortunately - my hard drive crashed and somehow my backup virtual data account got messed up. Also I am mostly computerless for the next few weeks so I won't be making my own edits until at least then. I am going to be doing research on DID and other dissociative disorders to write some articles with some help, so I'll be doing it anyway and might as well help wikipedia. Gotten a bit of wikipedia fever going on. Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay Sweetie. I trust you do make it a good article. Take a deeper look at the paranoia thing. That is not usually considered to be a symptom, instead it helps distinguish Schizophrenia from DID. Also the proposed DSM 5 is updated as per the edit I did. Both were correct edits. Keep up the good work. I will spend my time elsewhere if you have this under control and will check back time to time.~ty (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've looked into the citation used, and it is a primary source that is quite old. I will try to find a secondary source that discusses the issue, but as is I do not consider it a great source to include and would prefer to either demote or remove paranoia from the list. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

After looking for a while, I could not find a recent, secondary source that identified paranoia as a symptom of DID. Normally if something like this is a well-recognized symptom, it would be quite easy to verify with reference to MEDRS. Having this much trouble suggests that these findings were not replicated beyond this one group, or perhaps there some other reason that paranoia is not considered a symptom (several sources alluded to DID and borderline personality disorder being related, with paranoia being a symptom associated with the latter rather than the former, perhaps that is it). I will be removing paranoia from the list of symptoms, please discuss before replacing. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed several bits of text from the signs and symptoms section . The biggest thing is the removal of Rodewall, 2011 (PMID 21278542). This is a primary source, which examined a sample of around 100. Despite being recent, it's quite new (and most importantly - primary). In most cases it was redundant to other citations, in one it wasn't and I removed that text. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I guess this shows my inexperience in understanding primary/secondary sources. Thanks for fixing it. I'll have my new computer soon and want to start reading up more. Forgotten Faces (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Meh, it's a learning process. Primary/secondary It's an important distinction, it helps avoid cherry-picking sources to support some points and ignore others. Generally if a publication that identifies an experimental group, it's probably not a good idea to use it. There are exceptions, but they are pretty rare. It is possible to use the introduction/literature review as a source in these sorts of articles if you're careful - but generally for things that are widely accepted or already known, in which case there's probably a secondary source somewhere anyway.

If you don't already do so, I suggest searching on pubmed before google scholar - it has an option to restrict outputs to only review and meta-analytic articles, which is very helpful (once you've got search results, the option is in the left-hand column). From there, google scholar may be useful in turning up full-text versions. Google books are usually considered secondary sources as well, but the quality and reliability are much more of a crapshoot. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Unable to make simple edits

New Editors to a page should have the right to make GOOD edits.

I made 2 small changes and you - WLU started a war! I do not want to spend my days on this talk page again, but I would like to be able to edit the DID page. You need to accept that others would like to work on this page. ~ty (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

1. What changes? Diffs would be helpful.
2. How are they justified by policy/policies or guideline/s? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Get real! You know what they are - you reverted them and you already replied to my references so you have seen them - quit playing games! I have to run. We will continue this when I am back. Read the WP policy about allowing new editors to work on a page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylas (talk • contribs)

If you mean the references on your talk page, that don't mention paranoia, then I have both seen them and commented on why they are irrelevant to this specific point. So if you want to keep paranoia out of the symptom list, you've yet to justify it in a meaningful way. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC

Better

WLU, thank you for (finally) allowing the edits I suggested. Now those parts of the page are correct - according to the vast amount of information that I have read on the subject of DID. Perhaps it will work like this - so you can continue to micro-manage every bit of this page, yet you know little about DID. If at least I and others can point out to you the errors on the article, then you can look into them and fix them. I don't think WP is suppose to work like this, with you being Lord and Master, but whatever works. Thank you for making those changes! You now have the proposed DSM 5 and paranoia issues on the page correct. In fact, I now agree that the entire list of symptoms listed on the article are the currently accepted symptoms of DID. ~ty (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference between "I personally don't think this is a symptom of DID" and "the source supporting inclusion of paranoia as a symptom is a primary source" is significant and if you can't appreciate it, you shouldn't be editing the page. The similarities between our edits are coincidental and differ substantially in compliance with policy. It is not sufficient to "know a lot about DID" - you must demonstrate this knowledge through the verification of the text through reference to reliable sources in a neutral manner. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That is just more excuses WLU. I do know the difference. You just want what you want on the page, no matter what is correct. You only want those here that you can control and I WONT BE CONTROLLED by you or anyone else.~ty (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed DSM 5

Updated April-30-12

Disruption of identity characterized by two or more distinct personality states or an experience of possession. This involves marked discontinuity in sense of self and sense of agency, accompanied by related alterations in affect, behavior, consciousness, memory, perception, cognition, and/or sensory-motor functioning. These signs and symptoms may be observed by others or reported by the individual. Recurrent gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal information, and/or traumatic events that are inconsistent with ordinary forgetting. The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. The disturbance is not a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice. (Note: In children, the symptoms are not attributable to imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.) The symptoms are not attributable to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during Alcohol Intoxication) or another medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures).

Specify if:

With prominent non-epileptic seizures and/or other sensory-motor (functional neurologic) symptoms

Rollback

I've rolled back all of Tylas' recent edits. Here is my reasoning:

• The lead uses a direct quote from the DSM. Altering it flat-out wrong, and I shouldn't have to explain why.
• The DSM also does not use the term "alter" or "alters", nor does Nijenhuis et al.
• The removal of "much" from the sentence "There is controversy regarding the validity of this disease" is an idiosyncratic preference that ignores the fact that there is indeed considerable controversy over DID, as evidenced by the numerous references to this point.
• Spelling of "characterized" should not be changed per WP:ENGVAR.
• The statement "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for DID include..." should remain as is, as the verb "include" refers to "criteria", which is plural. As in "The DSM (singular) includes information on DID, and its criteria (plural) include..."
• The DSM is again the citation for the statement "At least two personalities take control of the individual's behavior on a recurrent basis..." The DSM does not use the term "parts of the personality", it actually states "the presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states", not parts or fragments. I've adjusted the text to indicate the terms are a quotation from the DSM, and deleted the word "personalities" as the previous sentence incorporates what is taking control.
• I've replaced "personality" in the sentence "In addition to the unique characteristics of multiple personality states with amnesia..." as again this is drawn from the DSM which uses the term "personality states".
• While Dell is the source for the list of the "wide range of symptoms present", it is a primary study of 220 participants, and should not be used per WP:MEDRS and I have removed it. If a secondary source exists that has similar criticisms and corroboration, then I have no issue with the list or a variant thereof being replaced.
• I have no idea why the statement "...and did not consider the possibility of iatrogenic induction of DID" was removed (more accurately - I believe it was not removed for a policy or guideline-based reason, since Reinders does indeed verify this point on page 47).
• Though I have little doubt that the statement "The concept of "alters" or "alternate personality" is the distinguishing characteristic of DID" is true, Sar, 2011 (Vedat is the author's first name) doesn't actually verify this point - quite the opposite, Sar states on the very first page of the paper that the difference between DID and DDNOS is a matter of severity rather than qualitative differences. To replace this, a citation actually making the point is required.
• The statement "Psychiatrist Colin Ross and many other well recognized researchers disagree..." may be factually accurate, but the fact is that section is verified by a single reference to Ross, 2009. Adding in the "...and many other well recognized researchers..." misrepresents the source.
• The wikipedia page for complex post-traumatic stress disorder is hyphenated and should not be changed to a redirect page merely because an editor prefers that version.

Also note that I removed a primary source referencing electrophysiological dysfunction, but that's unrelated to the revert. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You are such a dang control freak and your lack of knowledge of DID is frustrating! This is down right stupid. Please learn educate yourself on DID and quit just trying to be the only one allowed (other than those you control) to edit this page. I will get back to this as time allows.~ty (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to policies and guidelines justifying why your edits were appropriate and my revert was not. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You know the policies! I have stated them many times. YOU won't let anyone edit that you do not control - period! That is not what WP is! You pick and choose parts of research to post and call it valid! Then you sit as judge and jury as to what parts of articles can be referenced. You delete anything, such as the Howell information that discredits your believe that DID is NOT caused by trauma. It's ridiculous!~ty (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything substantive to say about the points made above? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said - when I have time. I don't live on WP like you! I have a LIFE and it's busy one! You just want to play games and keep me on the talk page. Been there with you. Done that. Not doing it again! I will be back in town Monday, but understand, that I will not play your game on the talk page!~ty (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to your rationale. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The only part of all this I agree with is the direct quotes (I could care less about the spelling) - BUT about those quotes, the problem is that you use the word "Personality" to confuse those that come here to find out what DID is. Most of the information on the DID WP page is simply SAD and wrong - cherry picked by WLU to try and support his POV rather than the mainstream information. This is not a challenge WLU. I don't want to be editor supreme. I just want the correct information on the DID article. Quit peeing all over your claimed territory.

Gosh it would be nice if you would stop insulting me.

Gosh, it would be nice if you did not DELETE every SINGLE edit I make! I have come here before and was really nice to you. You got an expert on DID banned from the page, in fact you have done the same to many who have DID. You are like a vulture on this page, watching over every single edit. You do not understand DID, yet you want to control everything that goes on this article. This is suppose to be a community project - it does not belong to JUST YOU! So, yes - you frustrate the heck out of me as well as a whole community of people who suffer with and treat DID.~ty (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

In order for you to claim everything is sad and wrong, you need to demonstrate this using sources. Your recent edits deleted several sourced statements, but added nothing. I'll check the sources your statements are appended to, if they do not support your point explicitly, I will rollback your latest edits. This appears to be yet more insistence that your understanding of DID is the correct one, achieved only by ignoring the considerable number of contradictory publications. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No, WLU - this is yet another example that you do not understand DID, thus you copy and paste or reword parts of articles and call that facts, yet it is out of context of the whole article and not the general conscious of the psychology community as a whole. It's just what you want to look at. Read a lot more literature, the stuff you have said before that you have no interest in reading or understanding at all. Once you have done this, then comment. Until then, you are only taking a stance of a minute chunk of community. ~ty (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course you will discount any information that says that if you abuse a child it can do them harm, but this study shows this is certainly not the case - I do know you will give a list of reasons to not use this study in your attempt to hide the harm done by child abusers.~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Which study? Do you mean this one that you try to link to below? That's a primary source and shouldn't be used. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The removal of "much" from the sentence .....

I knew you would say that! I agree that is should not be used, but it should be read and understood! This is the direction that researchers are going - they are starting to understand trauma and what is really going on. You appear to want WP to report the dark ages. That can go in the history section. There are many article and books that report this same sort of thing. I have listed them before, yet you ignore the references and delete the edits.~ty (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There is only a lot because you have cherry picked research that has been discounted by mainstream psychology as bunk, but even so it makes researchers jump through hoops to prove disprove things that have a shred of reality to them - rather than the whole story. I am out of town or I would also add the Howell quote that says something like - parts that are created by means other than through early childhood trauma do not persist. They haven no reason to remain. They do not act like trauma induced alters. They simply are NOT the same.~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That discounts the numerous sources that quite clearly state it is controversial. I believe I've read Howell, it's a book chapter that is a lot of summary of the researcher's individual experience, and less the overall literature. The articles I've recently acquired make the point that the research base hasn't changed much, and hasn't changed the controversy. I'll integrate them at some point. As a matter of fact, peer reviewed articles are much closer to the mainstream than book chapters, since they are peer reviewed and thus forced to undergo a more thorough scrutiny. Further, the articles I've been focusing on have discussed both sides of the controversy, not just one while ignoring the other. So no, no cherry picking. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Reinders, A.A.T. S. et al. ‘Fact or factitious: a psychobiological study of authentic and simulated dissociative identity states’ PLoS ONE (29 June 2012) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039279~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC) http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iop/news/records/2012/June/multiple-personality-disorder.asp

This is nothing but cherry picking! It is what you do. I really doubt you have read Howell. You have before claimed you have no interest in reading

about information on DID unless the research claims that DID is NOT caused by trauma, but instead otherwise induced. ~ty (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Another Rollback made by WLU is the term used by Nijenhuis - One of the authors of the Haunted Self. The term Nijenhuis uses is ANP! I am extremely comfortable with structural dissociation and ANP's and EP's. I would love to use these terms for the article! I do happen to have the Haunted Self here with me in a hotel room. What would you like to know about this book and Nijenhuis?~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"While Dell is the source....." - This article you removed is an excellent source and should be included in the WP page. There you go cherry picking again. A vast host of research says the same as Dell's 2006 research article. Do you even pay attention to how many use a certain article as a reference? You keep looking at your WP rules as black and white. Things are not that simple. What point in Dell's article exactly do you have problems with? It's a vast article that covers a huge amount of research.~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"Though I have little doubt that the statement "The concept of "alters...

Cherry picked and out of context again. Read Dell 2006 again to understand that an Alter is only one of many characteristics of DID. Which type of DDNOS (DDNEC) They do vary. Severity is a word taken out of context. It needs a lot of explanation. It means that with DID the dissociative barriers are more intact that with DDNOS-1.~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Another of your arguments from the top paragraph. A-D are the minimum criterion to receive a DX of DID. There is many more symptoms. Dell's 2006 article that WLU just deleted, is a great summary of them. The DSM shows the MINIMUM criteria for a DX - as anyone who is actually qualified to DX knows. This means that ALL things listed in the DSM are required criteria for this DX and receive equal weight. Another problem is when lay persons try and use these definitions, not knowing exactly what they mean.~ty (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A. The presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states (each with its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and self).

B. At least two of these identities or personality states recurrently take control of the person's behavior.

C. Inability to recall important personal information that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness.

D. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance(e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during Alcohol Intoxication) or a general medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures). Note: In children, thesymptoms are not attributable to imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.~ty (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Dell is a primary source, a review of a single sample of participants, and should not be used. Do you have a review article, a secondary source as required by WP:MEDRS, to source the list of symptoms? If not, we should not replace the list. A primary point here is that if you want a basic bit of information in the lead, it should be easy to source it to multiple authors, the point should be controversial. If Nijenhuis is the sole author who uses a specific set of terms, it should not be in the lead, it should be in the body. More later. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• B-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• B-Class psychiatry articles
• Mid-importance psychiatry articles
• Psychiatry task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages