:Oh a voice of reason! You are wonderful! It is a minority that believes this stuff (it's tied to covering up severe child abuse), but some of those are researchers in the field of DID. They are certainly not considered to be highly respected researchers, but none the less, they do have this title and they do publish in respected journals. The top researchers in the field of DID argue with them tooth and nail. The problem is that this argument is then brought to WP and instead of making a solid encyclopedic page to explain what DID is, the page is lost is this crazy debate rather than debating the real issues of the matter - the things that the top researchers struggle with figuring out. I know this in a way sounds like I have a POV, but I don't. Some things just muddle reality.   

 :Another question on source credibility that I have. Medscape, I think, is usually considered to be a good source for WP. I do have a MS and have done the normal research and thesis required for this, but the procedure on WP is different and I get this - to a point, since it seems that many editors have a different grasp on what good research means when it gets down to the nitty gritty of it all. One current issue is that some feel that because a group of professionals cited quite a bit of pediatric material (being pediatricians for a good part) rather than current DID articles, that they are not qualified as a reference for the DID WP page. I don't understand this. DID is a mental disorder that begins in childhood - I would hope that pediatricians are interested in the subject and know it well - in fact in many ways they are experts in ways that those who simply do research are not - they work with the patients. Grad level text books are getting the same 3rd degree - if they cite older literature then they are considered invalid more or less - where in reality an expert always cites the best literature out there no matter the age of it. They don't do a simple search like we do on WP and just grab the newest stuff. They are experts and thus they can and do this as general practice. Where the average lay person is not an expert on a subject and on the research history, so it's best they do use current review literature - as is what we like to use on WP, but there is only so much of this out there - especially in a small field like DID. So - this is my other problem with understanding what references should be used on a DID page. There seems to be a way around using just about anything except a review article that is within the last 5 years (which I agree are best to use), but other references such as medscape, merek, grad text books should be used. 

 One more point of confusion. On the DID page, editors will cite articles that totally disagree with the point they are citing, just because the article mentions that there is controversy about something. This makes it look like there is a bunch of support for their POV where there is not. Is this the way that WP works?   

 Things are not as black and white as the guidelines make them seem when there is conflict on a page, as I am sure you know all too well. So, this feeds my confusion. Thank you so much for taking the time to help me with my conflicted mind. ;)