Talk:Schizophrenia/Archive 1

message: I've merged the Diagnosis and Presentation (signs and symptoms) sections, as the issues are heavily interlinked as with most mental illness.
I've cut some discussion on the types of hallucinations and delusions that might be present as this is general for all psychotic disorders, not just schizophrenia and I think it's adequately covered in the delusion and psychosis entries.
Maybe it's worth moving the 'Categories' section up here as well as it discusses lots of the same issues (the bit on 'sluggish schizophrenia' is great and also highlights the subjectivity in diagnosing mental illness).
-- Vaughan
There appears to be no mention of the 'simple schizophrenia' (depression without florid schizoid symptoms) category. Etaonsh 09:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to diagnosis and presentation (signs and symptoms)

message: There wasn't much here before so I've added info on possible causes including genetic evidence, environmental factors and neuropsychology.
-- Vaughan
Hi Vaughan
In the Cause section there should be mentions to research showing the effects that the social environment can have in children`s brain development, with profound consequences for the entire adult life. For example, see the following works:
John Read et al.`s "The Contribution of Early Traumatic Events to Schizophrenia in Some Patients: A Traumagenic Neurodevelopmental Model";
Repetti et al.`s  "Risky families: family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring"; 
Bruce Perry`s "What childhood neglect can tells us about nature and nurture"; 
DeVries et al.`s "Social modulation of stress responses"; 
And i know there is a lot more about these issues, for example, studies about the neurobiology of child abuse, showing that adults that suffered abuse in childhood have an anatomically  different brain, because of this. Since there are also animals models for this phenomena (i mean the social environment influencing brain development), like Devries`et al.`s research, and many others, there are good reasons to believe in this studies. 
Why would children`s brain be insensitive or invulnerable to our social environment, especially considering that cientists like Dunbar say that the main reason for humans to have evolved big brains is just for dealing with conspecifics, and not for controlling the physical (or nonsocial) environment ? (This is the "Machiavellian Hypothesis"...)
Alberto 
:Hi Alberto,
:I think John Read's work (for example) is excellent and highlights an important area in schizophrenia research that has been neglected in the past. However, I think it's important that the article does not over-emphasise certain areas of research that are not widely cited.
:Personally, I would like to see such research more widely known and cited, but I'm not sure Wikipedia is the correct place to promote this aim.
:I'm a bit concerned that individual studies should not be given more prominence in the article than they are given in the academic and scientific literature. For example, the article already cites reviews (see ref 7) that include the recently added NAS-NRC veterans study.
: - Vaughan 10:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to Cause section

message: Shouldn't there be a paragraph explaining the common misconception that Schizophrenia is Multiple Personality Disorder (aka Dissociative Identity Disorder)? I can't count the number of times I've heard people confuse the 2.
:See the second to last paragraph in the History section. - Vaughan 17:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Although a quick review of this paragraph suggests that it needs a bit of work for clarity. To be completed shortly. - Vaughan 17:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that the schitzophrenia DID congruity stemed from research that suggests people with schitzophrenia hear their own the own thouhts but ar unable to recognize them causeing them the believe and claim multiple personalities.207.99.90.253 15:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schizophrenia vs. D.I.D 

message: Hi there,
I've removed the image 'SchizophreniaBrain.jpg' from the schizophrenia page, as it's from a copyrighted source, as far as I know. Unfortunately, it comes from the following article:
:Paul M. Thompson, Christine Vidal, Jay N. Giedd, Peter Gochman, Jonathan Blumenthal, Robert Nicolson, Arthur W. Toga, and Judith L. Rapoport. (2001) From the Cover: Mapping adolescent brain change reveals dynamic wave of accelerated gray matter loss in very early-onset schizophrenia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 11650-11655.
See this link for online version.
- Vaughan 12:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed image 

message: Barring good (meaningful) images of schizophrenic brains, what other images could this article utilize? A common example in psychology books is the degeneration of Louis Wain's artwork in the 1930s (link) as he apparently suffered from schizophrenia and some think it was responsible for his shift away from realism (some don't think it had much to do with it, though). It's from the 1930s at the very latest which, I think, makes it copyright a-ok, but I don't know. Other ideas? This topic is lacking in visual stimulation, so to speak... --Fastfission 17:13, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image ideas 

message: With reference to Gene Ray been listed in the 'Famous people affected by...' section, he mentions he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia on his webpage timecube.com. Someone kindly pointed this out to me on my talk page, so I thought I better reiterate it here. - Vaughan 12:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gene Ray 

message: Congratulations are in order for anyone who has worked on this article - it's fantastic! zaius 15:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: :It has also been suggested that the widespread cross-cultural presence of shamanic traditions in ancient cultures may reflect an evolutionary advantage of such altered states in guiding the shaman's tribe via some form of ESP.  To the degree that schizophrenia is correlated with shamanism, then schizophrenia may have been selected out for its supra-normal aspects.
Seems a little speculative to me, although I'd be happy to see some research cited to back up the points.
- Vaughan 20:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shamanism updates 

message: Medication abandoning known schizo man shots girl for refusing to kiss him. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/02/killed.for.kiss.ap/index.html
Why the fuck these assholes are still not radio tagged with blood sensor, so police will known when they abandon medication and then they are immediately arrested to prison hospital for forced treatment? How many more innocent healthy humans will have to fall because these genetic junk want to indulge in their sick minds? How the fuck can a schizo own a firearm? Now this piece of junk will claim insanity in court and get away with murder. He is responsible for abandoning medication and he should pay for that!
:I take offensive to that.  Admiral Roo (Talk to me)(My Contributions)(See lyrics I created)10:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
:Aw, how cute, he's all angry. What do you wanna do - gas them? 60.231.221.81 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you, 10? 60.231.221.81 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medication skipping schizos murder people everywhere 

message: Some schizophrenic people do commit serious violent acts, including murder and suicide. According to criminal records, 80% of all serial killers apprehanded had a mental condition and half of those were diagnosed with schizophrenia. The risk of violent crime is increased when schizophrenic people abandon their prescribed medication. Contrary to great advances made by the psychotropic pharmaceutical research since the 1950s, relatively few countries have enacted legislation to this day to require that schizophrenic patients adhere their prescribed medication protocol, even though the benefits greatly outweight the few side effects caused by modern pills.
Homicide committed by any schizophrenic patient usually attracts widespread media attention, in no small part because in many legal systems murderers can evade death penalty or inprisonment, provided they are found insane. It is generally perceived that many violent schizophrenic criminals are released from custody after relatively brief treatment at mental facility, receive little supervision thereafter and the authorities fail to take responsibility if he/she perpetrates another violent crime. Mass media, including the film industry often presents the diagnosis of schizophrenia as a state-issued licence to kill. There is an abundance of "psychopatic serial killer" themed thriller movies.
:I disagree with the statement Homicide committed by any schizophrenic patient usually attracts widespread media attention, in no small part because in many legal systems murderers can evade death penalty or inprisonment, provided they are found insane. It is generally perceived that many violent schizophrenic criminals are released from custody after relatively brief treatment at mental facility, receive little supervision thereafter and the authorities fail to take responsibility if he/she perpetrates another violent crime..  The reason why is because ppl who are found insane usually end up as ferensic cases, and end up in a state hospital for a long time, according to my case manager, at least in the USA.  Admiral Roo (Talk to me)(My Contributions)(See lyrics I created)11:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
A bald linking of schizophrenia with slightly higher murder rates, as in the article, is misleading, as a causative relationship is likely to be inferred, if it isn't actually invited, whereas there are clearly additional correlates to these factors, e.g., poverty and unemployment. Etaonsh 09:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crime and schizophrenia

message: 68.169.113.246
I have created stub articles for the following psychiatrists:
* Abram Hoffer
* David Rosenhan
* Jim van Os
I have also just created stubs on the following people:
* H.R. Hudson
Pleas help by adding more content to these pages.  Thanks.
Talk to me, 68.169.113.246
My contributions
17:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created pages 

message: :::Your insistence on designating schizophrenia as currently "controversial" is grossly misleading, in fact untrue.  There is more agreement now about the disorder, its nature and causes, since the 1950s, when Thorazine was discovered and the presence of a biochemical component first became evident.  Citing 60s cultural-revolution thinkers like Laing, Szasz, Berne, Schiff, et al. is appropriate in historical context, but few practitioners or educators buy their theories now.  I've been a psychotherapist for 30 years and I know of not one provider since the late 80s who questions the primacy of the biochemical component of schizophrenia.  Your persistence in insisting otherwise suggests an extreme lack of awareness of contemporary thought and practise, or else a personal agenda.  If you're intent upon reverting text corrections on that and stylistic points (vague descriptives, e.g.), I can't fight it, but you are being much too controlling and territorial on this article for the good of Wikipedia, especially considering that you are giving out blatant misinformation in the process.  JVC - 1 July 2005
:Hi there,
:Berne and Schiff are not mentioned in the article and Laing and Szasz are only listed under alternative approaches.
:However, there are many current providers who question the primacy of the biochemical component of schizophrenia, or its diagnostic specificity, as can clearly be seen from the recent literature, much of which is cited in the article. Similarly, the alternative viewpoint is also represented in the article.
:Rather than simply accusing the article of spreading 'misinformation' it would be helpful if you provide references to back up your points, rather than relying on rhetoric.
:Although you accuse the article of being based on a personal agenda, all the points are fully referenced and taken from the relevant literature, so please provide alternative sources (preferably ones published in peer-reviewed journals) if you want to represent another side of the argument.
:- Vaughan 2 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)
:::Your response avoids the main issue, namely,  that you insist on defining, in your initial paragraph no less, that schizophrenia is "controversial", and to make the point hit home, you even highlight the word.  The impression you thus give the reader is that there is major disagreement and discord among mental health practitioners, researchers and scholars, and that just is not so.  The fact that you stuff General Reading with books written from minority positions on the matter does not alter the fact that they are minority positions not evidence of major controversy.  
You are being dishonest - whether because you want to be or because you don't know your subject matter except from a minority viewpoint, that doesn't really matter.  What matters is, you are passing that dishonesty, that misrepresentation of rampant "controversy", on to novice, lay readers, some of whom may "be" schizophrenic or be family members, as if it were a behind-the-scenes reality of which they should be wary, instead of a tempest in a teapot eminating from the orifices of Scientology and a few still-dissident, aging, 60s "Psychology Today" radicals.   
I have 30 years practice experience as a psychologist, working with and learning from hundreds of other actively-practising mental health professionals (not just ivory-tower speculators), and the vast bulk of the evidence and practise frame of reference are now in the biological-basis school.  I did not start out practising from that frame of reference, but since the middle 1980s, the evidence has become overwhelming and I have had to tailor my approach to accommodate the significant biochemical aspect of schizophrenia.
I can list major contemporary works on the subject, and you can list more fringe works, and that will not solve the problem of, in wikipedia terms, this article lacking an NPOV as you insist on it being skewed from the very introduction.  Your bias shows, as does your intent to control the content of this article to maintain that bias, and that is what I am confronting.
What, BTW, are your credentials in the mental health field in general, and in diagnosis and treating schizophrenia in particular, that you should be given such control over this article's content, tone and direction by wikipedia?
--JVC, June 2, 2005.
:Hi there,
:I do not claim any authority to 'control' the article, and if you look at the edits, I am one of a number of people involved. In fact the recent edits you mention are largely not mine. However, I am aware of the literature and ongoing debates in the area, largely because I am a psychologist working between a university and a hospital researching the neuropsychology of psychosis. I am also a lecturer on graduate and postgraduate psychiatry courses teaching medical students and working psychiatrists. However, comparing 'rank' is largely pointless. It is more important to argue the points based on the published academic work, as is required on wikipedia.
When I first read the schizophrenia segment on Wikipedia, I was very disturbed! The whole controversial wording just felt like I was sitting in a lecture somewhere in the 1960's. I have a son with a more severe form of this illness and his father has bipolar which was not diagnosed until after his son was diagnosed. I can somewhat sort through the garbage that is in the literature where many family members find that difficult to do. Having any material related to Szasz and other antipsychitry folks is nothing more than heart breaking for me because it is this kind of thinking which influences the politics and laws still today in 2005. it is a terrible thing to say but i wish that anyone who writes publicly about schiziophrenia should have a child with the illness and then they would "get the picture". You would never see an article written about Alzheimers or autism EVER mentioning that it could be child abuse, parenting or that it may not even be the brain that's affected. Although this article is improving, myself and thousands of other family members along with the general public will turn to this kind of public information to help us understand and learn. Those who control the content are responsible for that learning.
:It is plainly clear from this work that the status of schizophrenia is controversial and this can be easily demonstrated with a working knowledge of the recent literature. For example, recent articles by Kendler in the American Journal of Psychiatry and Harland et al editorial in the British Journal of Psychiatry deal with exactly these issues. If they are not controversial, why are they being discussed in the leading psychiatric journals ?
:Similarly, the works listed in the general reading section are certainly not minority works. Madness explained recently won the 2004 British Psychological Society's Book Award, and Richard Bentall ([au&cmd=search PubMed link]) is a leading researcher and clinician in the field. Similarly, Michael Foster Green is one of the leading researchers into the neuropsychology of schizophrenia ([au&cmd=search PubMed link]). Each book actually argues for quite different positions on schizophrenia, although both mention critiques of the diagnostic approach.
:As to your edits, there are no objective diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of schizophrenia. This is made clear in the DSM and the ICD. Diagnosis is made from a third person perspective based on an interpretation of behaviours and experiences determed from a mental state examination. The subjective criteria can clearly be seen from the criteria listed in the article and in the DSM itself. Again these points are clearly stated in current psychiatric textbooks (e.g. , ).
:If you can find any sources which mention that there are objective criteria for diagnosing schizophrenia, please cite them.
:- Vaughan 2 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
::Ouch.  I am sorry for what you went through.  My experience in the professional world of psychiatry/psychology was not that bad, thogh ppl who are not pros gave me and still give me a hard time about my diagnosis.  I was thinking of going to Canada because I don't like what is happeining here in the USA.  But after reading your post, I am starting to rethink that move.  My main country I would like to be in is Sweden, but I know it would be extreamly difficult to get in because they have one of the best political systems in the world as well as one of the best health care systems in the world, and they know it.  Admiral Roo (Talk to me)(My Contributions)(See lyrics I created)12:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
BTW, is their a diffrence between a psychotherapist and a psychologist?  Admiral Roo (Talk to me)(My Contributions)(See lyrics I created)13:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
::Thank you for the response.  I did give my full diagnosis (both now and in the past) as well as a detailed statement of my life with Schizoaffective disorder.  See my user page, or go directly to the section about me and my disorders.  The three primary reasons why I want out of the USA are as follows:
*The care for the disabled (not just the mental health part) is slowly being destoyed.  For example, in my county, their is only one group home for the mentally ill, and RSS (Residentail Supplimental Services, an Ohio state program) are frozen right now.  All group homes in the area vanished because of lack of funding, most required $800 or more for a person to live in.  Without the help of RSS, most ppl, like myself, can't afford that kind of care.  Another example is that with the Medicaid program, only some of your medications are covered.  I have two that are not coverd totaling in about $80 per bottle.  $76 for Allegra (I have sevear allergies during the late spring to early fall months) and about $9 for Sarna (A skin medication, for some odd reason, for the last few months, my skin has been itching and peeling).
*The country, imo, is falling apart and becomeing a police state, not unlike what happend to Germany during the rise of the Nazies.
*The cost of education is vary high here, and keeps getting higher, just like our medical costs.
Admiral Roo (Talk to me)(My Contributions)(See lyrics I created)14:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I linked your site (that you gave in your paragraph above mine) so others can just click on it without having to copy and past it in thier browsers.
Dear ,  be careful about using absolutes as you stated that autism has NEVER been refered to as child abuse which is not true. Although I do sympathize with you it must be remembered that society is naturally resistant to change. Before you write angry letters you may wish to consider that Wikipedia records both facts and view points but when possible makes it clear if a statment is fact or view point.207.99.90.253 15:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did this guy address Vaughan as the book numbers he referenced, in reply to a message that wasn’t his? I’m confused. —Frungi 05:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial, bunk

message: I think that this article should mention that schizophrenia seems to cover a wider range of disorders in the USA than in some other parts of the English speaking world. --MacRusgail 02:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Hi there,
I notice recent changes of mine have been rv'ed so I thought I'd tackle some of the issues here.
1) Firstly formal thought disorder is not the primary sign of schizophrenia. It is a symptom (which is plainly clear from reading the diagnostic criteria) and any of the references in the formal thought disorder wikipedia article. To quote Sims () it is "abnormality in the mechanism of thinking described by the patient introspecting into his own processes of thought: that is the patient describes in his own words a process of thinking which is clearly abnormal to the outside observer". This is also described in other psychiatric textbooks, such as Fish and even Jaspers.
The "primary sign of schizophrenia is considered to be fragmentation of basic thought structure and cognition" is often given as cognitive dysmetria (see Fristons recent article in Brain) although this is only one theoretical approach.
2) "Mainstream research in the past two decades has established the causative influences of biochemical and genetic factors on the neurobiology of the brain"
Almost no definitive causitive processes have been established, largely due to the heterogeneity of any of the identified factors meaning they are not present in all people diagnosed with schizophrenia. For example, see the recent review article on the neurobiology of early psychosis in the British Journal of Psychiatry, or this review article on the neurobiology of schizophrenia from Molecular Interventions, or this review article on the neurobiology of psychosis from the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, or this review article on the genetics of schizophrenia in Trends in Genetics.
I could go on, or you could just read the relevant research. The most that can be said with any confidence is that "both biological and sociocultural influences are important contributing factors" as was stated in the original edit.
3) It is the status of schizophrenia which is considered controversial, as well as the diagnosis. Much recent work has considered whether it is a discrete disorder at all, rather than a spectrum of experiences and behaviours. This is being questioned by mainstream psychiatrists (see Craddock and Owen's recent article) by a large array of empirical studies (reviewed in this article) and a number of authors critical of the whole concept (there are many, I'm sure you're aware of them). Again, there are many others.
4) "There is also no association of schizophrenia with a predisposition toward aggressive behavior"
There is, but it is very small. Read the research referenced in the Schizophrenia#Schizophrenia_and_violence section of the article. It is clearly stated there.
5) Following empirical findings, reported in peer-review scientific journals with "On the other hand" and then giving your interpretation of the data with no supporting reference to published research is POV.
For example, to quote the article:
: A recent study of 4.4 million men and women in Sweden found a 68%–77% increased risk of psychosis for people living in the most urbanized environments, a significant proportion of which is likely to be accounted for by schizophrenia. On the other hand, it may be that the relatively high-stimulus and high-stress nature of urban life is eliciting psychotic responses in individuals who could avoid them in a more "laid back" or isolated rural environment.
The findings are given from an empirical study and the "On the other hand" point adds nothing except subjective interpretation. Why not let the reader decide for themselves, or read the original research which is referenced ?
6) Don't be surprised if subjective points are removed when they run counter to published research. The article is extensively referenced so you can read it for yourself.
- Vaughan 18:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes and the necessity of reading the research 

message: Hi there anonymous user who keeps reverting the article and accusing me of 'ongoing, obsessive personal POV control',
Please discuss your differences of opinion here, and equally as importantly, please provide evidence that supports the claims you make in the modifications to the article.
From the evidence I am aware of, they are largely unsubstantiated, which is why I've removed your changes once more. However, if there is research that supports the points you make, please cite it here, as I'm always interested to read research on the topic that I've not yet encountered and I'm sure the article would benefit.
Other wikipedians, your opinion would be welcome.
- Vaughan 19:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear anonymous user who keeps reverting article and accusing me of POV... 

message: These quotes were added to the article but I've been completely unable to source them. I've removed them for the time being, and hope someone can provide a source and verify their accuracy.
The quotes were:
:[Kraepelin] described schizophrenia as being what he called "a hell of the mind; inescapable and terrifying". Kraepelin wrote "schizophrenia stands alone amongst mental conditions; the madmen fall under the spell of the moon as it were. They are lunatics. Lovers of the moon."
- Vaughan 20:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kraepelin quotes source request 

message: The last paragraph in the "Alternative approaches to schizophrenia" section about anti-psychiatric movements is completely inappropriate and should be removed. I agree with it, but it is definitely not encyclopedic and should at least be listed as one view of an issue. In its current form it is really an attack.
:Yeah, it was inserted just a few hours ago. I've removed it. You could have done it yourself, though. But thanks for noticing.  Shanes 12:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant POV 

message: This article uses Template:Fn and Template:Fnb for footnotes, but most featured articles I've seen use Template:Ref and Template:Note.  Should this article use those templates instead?  --L33tminion (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No - the requirements for a featured article say it should have a references section coupled with judicious use of inline references; however, the particular referencing style is left up to the article writer's choice. →Raul654 18:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote Templates 

message: The article says: The incidence of schizophrenia was given as a range of between 7.5 and 16.3 cases per 100,000 of the population.  Yet, the article on incidence says it is measure over a defined period.  What is the period here ?  A year ?  This should be clarified, or the incidence article should be corrected.  As I'm no epidemiologist, I leave others to correct. - Anon. 24 0cober 2005
:I agree with your assessment.  It is surprising this has not been corrected by anyone in the last six weeks.  I am not an expert on this either, but a reasonable assumption would be that the  missing time period would be one year.  Twelve new cases (the median number given) per year in the population of 100,000, over 60 years would yield a lifetime prevalence of 0.7 % which is within the correct range.  --Blainster 17:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidence: per year ? 

message: I've removed a couple of sentences from the 'Schizophrenia and violence' section as follows
:Frequently, [violence suffered by people with schizophrenia] is a result of the victim’s inability to function well and maintain proper behavior and thinking in the public sphere, and violent action is taken upon the victim while the perpetrator is most often unaware that the victim has a crippling mental illness. People with schizophrenia who wind up in prison (often indirectly as a result of their illness) are also highly prone to being victims of violence, as many fellow inmates fail to make a distinction between the perceptions and behavior of a person with mental illness as with a person who expresses normal behavior.
Although plausible, this seems completely anecdotal to me. If anyone has any further evidence to support the above statement, we can drop the text back in with proper references.
- Vaughan 17:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schizophrenia and violence removal 

message: Could you please put in there a definition of positive (i.e. things being present that shouldn't be) versus negative (i.e. things being absent that should be there) in the description of schizophrenia's symptoms?  I'm not sure how to word that but I think it's important for casual readers to understand the meanings of positive/negative here.  Thanks. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shane's Recent Reversion 

message: This page has been vandalized by 24.235.144.129 (diff). Please could somebody check if his changes have survived in the current version and remove them. Cacycle 20:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check for vandalism 

message: Hi Francesca,
I'd prefer text was not deleted from the talk page, however prejudiced and objectionable. I think countering the arguments with rationale argument and correct information, as was done in this case, is a better approach than censorship, as I'm sure many people would benefit from reading the debate.
- Vaughan 06:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of text from talk page 

message: An interesting study came out yesterday. . There are pretty good summaries here, here, and here and the whole report (warning: PDF) is at . Not sure where/if it might fit in, though.--Arcadian 20:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This 'research' seems a coy, obtuse, verbose and euphemistic rediscovery of the fact that privelege brings freedoms to act in certain ways - and, to a greater extent, to get away with it. One of the links is already no longer functioning, so if you want to preserve this information you might want to think about recording it.  Etaonsh 06:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theorized evolutionary benefits of schizophrenia

message: This article has been mentioned in Challenges of being a Wikipedian, as part of the article "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head" (Nature website, 14 December 2005; doi:10.1038/438900a).
202.0.40.90 00:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this. I've added a 'press source' box. - Vaughan 00:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Not so modest, Vaughan, we know it was you being interviewed. JFW | T@lk 00:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature magazine website 

message: The references presently use a full URL to link to PubMed abstracts. A quicker way is simply inserting PMID [number] after the reference, which is automatically turned into a link, such as . JFW | T@lk 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PMID 

message: Read through this article and found it good and striving for objectivity in most senses..
However, the list of "Notable people affected by schizophrenia" seemed a bit judgmental. In my opinion, judgment and stigmatization is exactly was has to be avoided in the public discussion on any psychiatric diagnosis. 
Furthermore, after looking through the list, I noted that some of the examples were largely speculative..
I changed to Notable people commonly believed to have been affected by schizophrenia, instead. Anybody opposing this?
--Serrano 11:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noticed that the list of "notable possibly schizophrenic individuals" is fuzzy. John Kennedy Toole, for example: there's no mention of schizophrenia on his own page. (Famous suicide, yes.) Someone want to delete him if they corroborate this? Bombyx 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding stigmatization 

message: --Mihai cartoaje 23:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible cause of schizophrenia 

message: User Mihai cartoaje, can you please justify removal of the Torrey book.  You may dislike Torrey and his message but why must you keep removing it?  I disagree with many points of view expressed in this article but I don't just remove them. --Coroebus 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Torrey

message: Why is random Russian text included, possibly duplicating the "role of dopamine" section? Should it be merged into the Russian page? I don't speak it well enough to do it myself, but it doesn't appear to have a duplicate. 198.82.59.174 04:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Russian 

message: I added a little blurb about how Freud was competing with Bleuler for the renaming of dementia praecox, obviously Freud's term "paraphrenia/paraphrenic" lost out to Bleuler's term. Jordangordanier 00:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paraphrenia & Freud 

message: In the List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder there is an insistence that verifiable source citations must be included. There seems to be no such request in Notable people thought to be affected by schizophrenia. Should there not be some verifiability with this list? --WikiCats 12:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable people thought to be affected by schizophrenia

message: while some people consider this to be a personality disorder and some not, it's a fact that people search for it under Category:Personality disorders and thus should be linked  there as well for navigational help, even if it's not technically a PD, but in such case it should be explictly stated on the text.
:Some people consider an adherence to psychiatry to be a personality disorder. Etaonsh 06:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is that categories are for navigational help. They are not "definitions" for example "Affective spectrum" is not a personality disorder, but the concept is closely related, thus is included on the Personality disorders category. Likewise here. It's not, but it's related and people may be looking at that category for this, is THIS article  job to explain why. --  ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  category 

message: Hi Mihai,
The study you referenced does not show that no anomalies were detected. Firstly, it found anomalies in 5% of cases, and secondly it was looking for relatively gross lesions (e.g. space-occupying lesion) not structural differences per se.
:I wrote anomalies clinically related to their psychiatric condition.
::The study did not have a control group, and did not compare between clinical groups, so provides no evidence for anomalies related to psychiatric condition. - Vaughan 13:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any evidence of this reversing, although I'd be pleased to see any. Any references would be gratefully received. - Vaughan 13:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Except the discussion is not related to schizophrenia, it is related to its use in psychiatry as a whole. - Vaughan 13:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAT scan study notes 

message: I have added the section on the glycoprotein reelin's role in schizophrenia in the reelin article. Reduced reelin levels in this disease have been independently confirmed. If you deem it appropriate, you may include a link to these facts in your article.--CopperKettle 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of Reelin glycoprotein in Schizophrenia 

message: You know Wikipedia is worried about schizophrenics signing on with the encyclopedia. I am worried about the millions of post communist chinese who may sign on with Wikipedia, and edit its web pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.19.141.251 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Anonymous comment]