Wiki DID

This article needs so much work!

This was in the discussion area. Thoughts?

"Professional critics of DID are not claiming that the disorder "does not exist"; they argue the etiology of the disorder is iatrogenic and/or sociocultural and that it is a form of somatoform or conversion disorder. This is in opposition to DID proponents who believe DID is a product of traumatic childhood abuse."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociati ... y_disorder

If you know your stuff this page really needs work. It's set up as controversial and it should not be.

i know my stuff but would be hard pressed to find references for everything or anything really

What a mess........

When is society going to get their head out the sand and admit that CHILD ABUSE HAPPENS AND IS VERY COMMON!!!!!!

I don't have the time to sort out such a messy page only for some twerp to go along and mess it up again. I never realised how sh*t Wiki was until I started coming on here!

Bourbon

*Edited*

that is good to hear tylas

i don't mind the controversy having a section in the article, it exists unfortunately and should be noted

but it shouldn't be blown out of proportion

realmofsoftdelusions wrote:that is good to hear tylas

i don't mind the controversy having a section in the article, it exists unfortunately and should be noted

but it shouldn't be blown out of proportion

Controversy should not be in it at all. There can be a Wicki section such as False Memory, or whatever they categorize themselves under, but it does not belong in the DID article.

DID is not a controversial issue. It's just that some wackos make it one.

tylas you probably know more about this than i do

you dont think it deserves even a passing mention? im on your side remember im just trying to understand how it seems like a bigger issue to me than you (i mean, the issue of their being a controversy vs there not being one)

respectfully asking hope you dont take it the wrong way

realmofsoftdelusions wrote:tylas you probably know more about this than i do

you dont think it deserves even a passing mention? im on your side remember im just trying to understand how it seems like a bigger issue to me than you (i mean, the issue of their being a controversy vs there not being one)

respectfully asking hope you dont take it the wrong way

Of course I don't take it the wrong way.

There is a link there to the pop culture DID. There can be a link to a whole page on controversy if they want, but the main page on the disorder of DID should be controversy free. Would you want controversy on a page about PTSD?

I could be wrong, but I don't like giving credit to something that is so absurd that DID does not exist or is made by therapists or the like.

*Edited*

Thank you for bringing this issue to light.

I agree with Tylas, any mention of a controversy should be separate. It is entirely politically motivated and unscientific.

Wikipedia is rather notorious for its pro-false memory bent. It has actually banned some abuse survivor advocate editors and banned links to sites providing information about extreme abuse.