Talk:Dissociative identity disorder

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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, 13: 3 months

Dissociative identity disorder (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 4 September 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Medicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 11, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed

Archives

/Multiple personality controversy

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Reference ideas for Dissociative identity disorder

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Soldati, Lorenzo; Hasler, Roland; Recordon, Nathalie; Clement, Marie; Köhl, John; Perroud, Nader (1 October 2022). "Gender Dysphoria and Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Case Report and Review of Literature". Sexual Medicine. 10 (5): 100553. doi:10.1016/j.esxm.2022.100553. ISSN 2050-1161.
Boysen, Guy A.; VanBergen, Alexandra (January 2013). "A Review of Published Research on Adult Dissociative Identity Disorder: 2000–2010". The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 201 (1): 5. doi:10.1097/NMD.0b013e31827aaf81. ISSN 0022-3018.
Schenk, L.; Bear, D. (October 1981). "Multiple personality and related dissociative phenomena in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy". The American Journal of Psychiatry. 138 (10): 1311–1316. doi:10.1176/ajp.138.10.1311. ISSN 0002-953X. PMID 7294186. Retrieved 6 March 2023.
Sandel, M. E.; Weiss, B.; Ivker, B. (June 1990). "Multiple personality disorder: diagnosis after a traumatic brain injury". Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 71 (7): 523–525. ISSN 0003-9993. PMID 2350225. Retrieved 6 March 2023.
Miller, S. D. (August 1989). "Optical differences in cases of multiple personality disorder". The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 177 (8): 480–486. doi:10.1097/00005053-198908000-00005. ISSN 0022-3018. PMID 2760599. Retrieved 6 March 2023.

We should remove the infobox

The infobox is particularly problematic because it presents one cause "the trauma model" as fact, when it is disputed by the scientific community. It is particularly difficult to include the sociogenic model in there too. Infoboxes are not required on articles, and I think this might well constitute a WP:DISINFOBOX: "A box aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive summary of information; not all information can be so neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a timeline that substitutes for genuine history, it offers a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance. As a substitute for accuracy and complexity, a box trumps all discourse".The problem is I cannot see how it would be "improved" without becoming absurdly long and confusing. Thus, it makes more sense to remove it entirely. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bump? Zenomonoz (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cause has been updated to "disputed". I agree with you, however, it a really long infobox, which sort of defeats the purpose. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page should be deleted

or at least make it sure that it's clear that DID is a fictitious disorder 2A00:23C8:903:FE01:2C69:DE3A:315D:3FD3 (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the DSM, which is a reliable, peer-reviewed source. lizthegrey (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page shouldn't be deleted, but the disorder is certainly disputed as an organic phenomena. As for DSM, Allen Frances who lead the DSM-5 development wanted to delete the disorder entirely. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are divided as to its origins, or whether it is even a naturally occurring disorder at all, but there is no doubt that there are those who show its symptoms or that it can be observed in parts of the world. The page should obviously not be deleted; DID is an observable phenomenon and whether one believes it is "real" or iatrogenic, culture-bound, sociogenic or caused by trauma, it is notable and merits inclusion. If you feel the article needs more information, you are welcome to contribute. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 01:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteing the page I think is a bit of an exaggeration, Wikipedia obviously should have a page on DID; however, I get where he is coming from. I took a couple of Psych courses in college, and while they didn't go that far into last I checked psychologists didn't really believe in it. In fact, the last time I heard about somebody claiming to have DID they were treated the same way as someone claiming to have been abducted by aliens. (It was on Doctor Phil, and in the end, it was revealed that he was abusing veritably every illegal drug on the market. His brain was so smashed up that it was hard to imagine any mental or cognitive symptoms that he wouldn't be facing, but you can't trust a guy on meth). The disbelief in DID wasn't just something amongst Ivy League doctors, for all the flack the movie Split got for demonizing mental illness it is safe to say that M.N. Shyamalan wouldn't make a horror film where the monster is somebody who is autistic, or bipolar. The writers and the actors only made the film because DID didn't exist in their minds.

Yet this page makes it sound like the skeptics are the odd ones out, fringe detractors from a well-established diagnosis. So either a monumental shift has happened in the world of psychology, or this article is leaving out a whole lot of context regarding how much the idea is disapproved. Perhaps I have just happened to find myself surrounded by what is actually the minority opinion whenever DID comes up, but I've seen Wikipedia articles about topics that I think are much more widely accepted where the subject is outright described as pseudo-science in the first two sentences. So, the fact that the controversy isn't even mentioned in the first paragraph is quite alarming.50.53.196.40 (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Factitious? Or am I misinterpreting that? 71.46.227.2 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a webpage that may help: https://did-research.org/controversy/malingering/pseudogenic 71.46.227.2 (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Key Features section has no sources

I know this is a controversial page and I’m afraid to wade into it, but the “Key Features” section makes a lot of claims without any sources. Some of that information might be relevant if it were presented as definitions of words commonly used by DID subcultures, but the section as it stands presents a lot of information as fact without any citations, and arguably contradicts some of the information written elsewhere on the page. 2603:8080:C900:850B:48F8:DED2:7E4D:AE36 (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to such a heavy debated topic such as DID, the lack of any citation on the entire section makes it harmful to the integrity of the article. The user who originally added said section had made multiple additions to articles on the site with zero citations, and seems to show little regard to Wikipedia's content style. 76.68.185.74 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant event relating to this in Australia.

I dont know how to write medical stuff, so I am simply linking this in.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-05/father-accused-sexual-abuse-multiple-personalities-verdict/104674820

Why this appears to be IMPORTANT to me as a layman is, as the article says, that the court treated each separate personality as an separate individual, even going so far as to swear in each personality as a witness as a separate person. This to me as a layman signifies that the court has accepted the existence of separate personalities as REALITY. 2001:8003:E40F:9601:701F:B8BF:952E:A585 (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a WP:MEDRS. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be DUE to write something under Legal issues heading. lizthegrey (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Did" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Did has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 25 § Did until a consensus is reached. KOLANO12 3 14:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]