Talk:Schizophrenia/Archive 3

message: Where's the citation for this?  Which "studies show"?
"...though studies suggest that genetics, neurobiology and social environment are important contributing factors"
152.42.142.1Daniel
:Virtually all of them. - Vaughan 06:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: "Nevertheless, some previous research in this area has been criticised as it has often not been clear whether cannabis use is a cause or effect of schizophrenia."
Could someone please explain to me how cannabis use is an effect of schizophrenia?  Is this saying people with schizophrenia are more prone to use cannabis?  If so, I think there should be a linked study.  At the very least this sentence should be rephrased.
:Hi there,
:People with mental illness are many times more likely to use drugs and alcohol, partly in an attempt to relieve the distressing symptoms and experiences.
:If you read the reference 48 paper, it deals with exactly these issues.
: - Vaughan 15:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, patients are more likely to be long-term unemployed, and therefore less likely to behave in ways unconducive to job retention, which would include admitting to technically illicit recreations. --londheart 08:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannabis association

message: I don't see any reason to merge this article with schizophrenia as it is an experimental method that is not specific to schizophrenia. Although it has been used widely in schizophrenia research, it has also been used to investigate anxiety, depression and panic disorder to name but a few.
Unfortunately, the prepulse inhibition article is so badly written as to suggest that it is purely a model of schizophrenia.
So, if there are no objections, I'll remove the merge tag at the top of the article.
- Vaughan 15:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed pre-pulse inhibition merge 

message: BMJ this week a nice study on the effects of clozapine & olanzapine on needs for readmission etc. JFW | T@lk 09:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of effectiveness in community 

message: I have added a clean-up spam tag because there are external links to E. Fuller Torrey and schizophrenia.com which promote the forced use of drugs. --Mihai cartoaje 15:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mihai, I've removed the tag as these are not spam. They are not trying to sell any particular product, they just promote a view that you don't agree with. Alternative viewpoints to your own are not spam, and the article should link to a diverse range of opionions. - Vaughan 15:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There appears to be an inappropriate double negative there, perhaps written in the heat of POV bluster(?). Continueddonations 07:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 'Should' implies opinion (POV), not information. I think your English is better than you suggest, on the other hand - too many double negatives giving the opposite meaning to that intended. --Etaonsh 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup-Spam 

message: Mihai! Schizophrenia.com is a good, respected site. "Promoting the forced use of drugs" is not against the law, besides, people having psychosis should be medicated for the sake of their own health. 
You clearly trying to impose your own rules on this article. 
You say: "Wikipedia's rule about external links with false statements." 
Well, there is not a single website on the web without some false statements of some sort. Besides, according to this "rule", you clearly should delete all the links to the "anti-psychiatric" websites critical of genetic factors etc., because they are sure brimful with false statements.
You say: " Wikipedia's rule about external links which don't have content which cannot be included in the article."
Too many "donts" and "cannots" to me. I'm not that good in understanding English. What do you mean by this rule and where can I read it in the original (link, please)? --CopperKettle 03:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Should' implies opinion (POV), not information. I think your English is better than you suggest, on the other hand - too many double negatives giving the opposite meaning to that intended. --Etaonsh 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: can i barge in?

message: I just reverted an addition to the article about Schizophrenia being cured by a certain doctor for some time, referring the reader to some references. There is already a treatment section in the article, so I think the added content there is unnecessary (not to mention doesn't seem to be in a proper tone as it refers to the reader as 'you', and seems to read as more of an advertisement for the doctor). Hopefully the IP will come here and discuss his or her reasoning for including such information. Thanks. Oh, and there was a typo in the edit summary that was meant to say 'unencyclopedic', not 'unencyclopedia' :)Cowman109Talk 18:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment addition 

message: Whenever I have an opportunity, I will revert any vandalism
considering the genetic factors in schizophrenia. Also, I'm planning to add a couple of lines on Reelin's role in schizophrenia (and RELN gene). These, along with the mentioned in the article genetic findings, are independently confirmed, even several times confirmed, by different groups of scientists. I'm quite irked by consistent vandalism on a part of Mihai (violence section deletion, for example). The Schizophrenia page is on my watchlist now. --CopperKettle 03:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your own attitude aggressive and vandalous - towards patients and offspring - your lack of objectivity is such that the reader can conclude with certainty that you yourself are not stigmatised in a group of this kind. 'Schizophrenia' is well-known in the mental health community to be a vague, 'catch-all' diagnosis, more likely to be applied to those who, often thru poverty, unemployment, social exclusion, and social group peccadilloes, happen to come to the attention of diagnosticians, and we should consider all relevant scientific research in that light. Excessive claims are made in the article on the basis of the existing scientific research. The latter might show similarities between separated twins but this is in fact no certain guarantee of a genetic explanation. Furthermore, research on actual genes themselves does not support a socially contrived diagnosis of 'illness,' it merely supports the existence of inherited difference, which is a wholly different thing and not necessarily pathological - in fact, it often has survival value. Please approach this delicate subject with more care, humility, sensitivity and objectivity - tread softly, for you tread on our life chances. Also, such overt offensiveness re genes would not be tolerated in the case of physical disability and/or ethnicity, and it shouldn't be tolerated here. If you keep shooting your mouth off about large sub-groups of the population, you could well find your own health and survival chances affected. --Etaonsh 11:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think threats of violence are either wanted or necessary. However, it's important to note that your point is discussed in the article under the 'Diagnostic issues and controversies' section, which notes that the diagnostic approach is subject to a number of significant flaws. The article aims to present all main approaches to schizophrenia, however, so also discusses the results from genetic studies which typically focus on people who have been diagnosed, regardless of the possible flaws with this approach. Hence, deleting this section of the article because it doesn't fit your opinion is hardly in the spirit of NPOV to which Wikipedia adheres. - Vaughan 12:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think threats of violence are warranted or necessary either, but sadly that is what a diagnosis of schizophrenia in the modern world equates to. I agree that the 'Diagnostic issues and controversies' section is well crafted, but its important conclusions seem to be ignored in e.g., the section under discussion. It needs to be stated clearly in the article that what genetic research shows is genetic difference, not 'illness,' which is a non-value-free social construct. You are quite incorrect to associate me with the deletion of any of this article - do your homework. --Etaonsh 13:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I concur with Vaughan. Etaonsh: I never "shoot my mouth off" anything. Watch your language, you're much too eloquent. You say: "your lack of objectivity is such that the reader can conclude with certainty that you yourself are not stigmatised in a group of this kind" - Well, my uncle did have schizophrenia, and I have some problems too, and this sparked my interest in psychiatry, but I did not come to Wikipedia to discuss this. I agree that schizophrenia is today a 'catch-all' diagnosis, but I beleive that the genetic linkage studies and subsequent unravelling of underlying pathways is the main way to make the diagnosis in the future more specific, maybe - sometime - split schizophrenia into several diagnostic forms, thus prompting the doctors to approach the sufferers with, as you aptly put it, more "care, humility, sensitivity and objectivity". Deleting the confirmed medical findings only hampers the understanding and research, not to mention the NPOV rule violation.  --CopperKettle 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My guess is that your admonition, 'Watch your language, you're much too eloquent' was intended in good humour, but it serves to show how positive attributes can become stigmatised in a social setting. Your reluctant personal 'admissions' still fail to counter my original deduction, and your reference to 'diagnosis' still fails to acknowledge the points made already about what genetic research does and doesn't show. Without wishing to offend, I expect a lot of Russian uncles were 'diagnosed' with schizophrenia - and worse. It is not in my interests, in the circumstances, to delete material which exposes the writers' misuse of psychiatric labelling - I have an interest in exposing, not deleting. --Etaonsh 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. to the "If you keep shooting your mouth off about large sub-groups of the population, you could well find your own health and survival chances affected." - Well, I value my health, but I am not so degraded and selfish yet as to put my "own health and survival chances" above the scientific facts (like genetic studies' results) that may bring hope to the millions of people , so your threat doesnt much work here, besides showing your own aggressivenes. --CopperKettle 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pseudo-scientific 'diagnosis' by a global monetarist conglomerate is not, I assure you, a hopeful experience for patients. A statement of likely consequences of actions does not constitute threat, and unsubstantiated assumption of threat is, again, not in the spirit of rational inquiry, and symptomatic of paranoia, albeit shared. --Etaonsh 14:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: P.P.S. As long as Schizophrenia is considered an "illness" by the world scientific community, it is an illness. And the Wikipedia article must state this, mentioning the non-mainstream views but not being governed by them. As soon as Schizophrenia-as-illness concept is abolished, you can put it as "non-value-free social construct" and erase all the linkage studies' data. But for now, such deletion is vandalism. --CopperKettle 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your first two sentences are authoritarian and compliant rather than informative, the third is fanciful, and the fourth exemplifies the type of non-evidential, blithely wrongful accusation which is characteristic of psychiatric misdiagnosis and all those who play a part therein. --Etaonsh 14:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Evidence comes from research suggesting multiple chromosomal regions are transmitted to people who are later diagnosed as having schizophrenia.
That's not what the abstract says. The abstract says "Replication has been inconsistent for reports of significant genetic linkage." I tried to correct it but Skinnyweed reverted me without any explanation. --Mihai cartoaje 18:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Mihai, I can't find this statement in any of the three abstracts (refs 12, 13 or 75) that are used in this paragraph. Which abstract are you thinking of? - Vaughan 18:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The one Coroebus added in the archives. --Mihai cartoaje 19:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism: Mention of genetic background is deleted

message: The section 'Diagnostic issues & controversies' fails to make mention of the fact, widely reported, that diagnosis is significantly more likely to affect some social and ethnic groups more than others, arguably reflecting inequalities compounded by correspondingly restricted diagnostic perceptions. Could someone assist me with the relevant stats, studies, and references, please? --Etaonsh 18:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neglected diagnostic issue/controversy: sociology of diagnosis 

message: I have read that Phil Spector is bipolar, not schizophrenic. This area really should be checked as the two are significantly different although they share some symptoms. Great page, otherwise.
:A man in his position would surely demand, as you suggest, an extra pole(?). --londheart 23:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable People

message: Schizophrenia surely deserves a separate section on 'stigma,' somewhere between 'Diagnosis' and 'Violence'(?). --londheart 08:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stigma 

message: I do not wish to fiddle with this excellent article as it is, but have the following comments / suggestions:
A family member was recently diagnosed as schizophrenic, and in six months I have had two questions about whether I feel it is safe to leave my kids alone with her in the house. Both instances were related to perceptions of uncontrollable violence. So as far as I am concerned, yes, the lay public seems to relate schizophrenia to violence. If the idea is general, then I would expect an encyclopedia to inform me as to whether such opinions are scientifically based.</br>However, the sentence under "Violence against people with schizophrenia" was difficult to interpret until I read the reference. As formulated, I had interpreted it to mean that the persons who were attacked were more likely to be schizophrenic than the persons who had done the attacking [were likely to be schizophrenic], or that the schizophenic was more likely to be the victim of violence than he was to be the perpetrator of violence, but the reference seems to have nothing to do with these interpretations. It seems to be making the point that the schizophrenic is more likely to be a victim of violence than a "normal" person is. May I suggest, using the same reference (which I unfortunately have available only as an abstract - bless the scientific publishers, whose prices for reading science are way beyond my financial capability):
:"An Australian study has concluded that patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders are at increased risk of victimization. Of the 348 patients studied, 4.3% of them were victims of a violent crime, during the one month follow-up period. This compares to a figure of X.X% for the general population. or This is X.X times the figure for the general population over the same period. or The expected figure for the general population in the area studied was X.X%."
The last (italicized) sentence is for giving the figure for what the "normal" rate of violent crimes would be, to give some meaning to the figure for schizophrenia. Does the complete article text give the figure for non-schizophrenics? If not, then any conclusion of "increased risk for victimization" does not seem to make sense/science. --Seejyb 15:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Violence" section wording 

message: I saw in the Clozapine article that there's a variant of schizophrenia called "treatment-resistant schizophrenia", which apparently resists the effects of almost all other drugs but clozapine. (Or I'm assuming; it says the FDA hasn't approved any other drug for it). A Google search turned up the term "treatment-refractory" schizophrenia, as well. If anyone has access to a good resource on this, I think it's important to include something about it in the article -- I feel like I know way too little to try myself. Phoenix-forgotten 16:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment-resistant schizophrenia 

message: I've replaced the following paragraph with the previous version:
:A recent review of linkage studies listed seven genes as likely to be involved in the diagnosis of schizophrenia or the risk of developing diagnosis of the disease. Evidence from linkage studies has stongly implicated different genetic loci chromosomal causing different genetic subtypes of schizophrenia in different families. Genetic association studies have suggested some strong candidate genes which may contribute to risk of getting the diagnosis. The strongest evidence points towards genes called NRG1 DAOA PCM1 and Epsin 4. Others such as dysbindin and COMT are still to be replicated fully.
Partly because the information seems to be at odds with recent reviews of the genetics literature (for example, the COMT statement seems to be correct, but not the statement on dysbindin - e.g. see review, and partly because the person changed the text and yet left the original references intact - which contain contradictory information.
I'll work on updating the section to be more accurate based on the latest reviews.
As an aside, if you wish to add new information, please also add new references. Otherwise we can't verify if the information is correct and it makes the text article confusing to have the references saying different things from the writing.
Thanks - Vaughan 14:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now update the Schizophrenia#Genetic section with the candidate genes from the latest reviews. - Vaughan 14:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics section 

message: "John Nash...made a substantial recovery without the use of antipsychotic medication."
This is misleading. Nash made a substantial recovery _with_ the use of antipsychotic medication, and _then_ was able to stop using the medication, with the approval and supervision of his doctors. There were times before this recovery when he stopped it on his own and was unable to deal with his symptoms. 
68.40.167.60 01:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schizophrenia in the arts 

message: I think the RFC section above indicates that this material should remain.  Rather than blanking and reverting, it would be more useful to have material included, with verifiable sources that describe the competing point of view.  DPetersontalk 13:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC and blanking regarding the relationship between Schizophrenia and Violence

message: Renaming schizophrenia: a Japanese perspective,  WPA journal - for someone who knows how to incorporate the info.
(don't know what it means, but didn't seem like vandalism to me, so here it is. Dina 23:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a suggested source. Shimeru 23:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from article and placed on talk page

message: Hopefully the Administrator will place here the reason for protecting this page and then those involved in the dispute can each clearly and briefly describe what they would like included, deleted, and changed.  This can then serve to prompt a dialogue whose aim would be reaching some consensus on the disputed content.  DPetersontalk 13:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mihai cartoaje (talk • contribs) has been revert-warring to remove the section on violence, claiming, without citing any evidence, that some of those who support its inclusion are sockpuppets. The reason given for sprotection was "Continued edit warring -- forcing discussion", but the section's inclusion has already been discussed in the RFC on this talk page and a supermajority to include it has been reached. In addition to removing a section in spite of RFC consensus, the current version contains a broken interlanguage link and a section that is misplaced in the appendices when it belongs above the "See also" section in the article body, per WP:GTL guidelines. --Muchness 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: REASON FOR PAGE PROTECTION

message: #RalphLendertalk 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Retain/include disputed section

message: RalphLender and DPeterson have been the object of a suspected sockpuppetry report. We don't have the results of the RFCU yet. More information is here: . --Mihai cartoaje 
:And the result was the fact that this was not the case...that I am not related to RalphLender and that we are separate individuals.  Your accusattion is not only unfounded but is antithetical to wiki policy in that it is irrelvant and and does not assume good faith and is a personal attack DPetersontalk 01:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a reprisal by Mihai cartoajebecause of the filing of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/schizophrenia in which is appears he was acting in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia policy and practices. DPetersontalk 01:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: He, Mihai cartoaje, has a history of deleting material he does not like(see his talk page history) and a history of what can be interpreted as distruptive editing and vandalism see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20_User:Hungrygirl for an example.  DPetersontalk 02:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems to have a habit of deleting and edting comments rather than acknowledging his mistakes.  For example, his previous comment was changed by him from "RalphLender and DPeterson have been the object of an investigation for being a single user operating multiple accounts. We don't have the results of the RFCU yet. More information is here:" to the above.  DPetersontalk 14:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note the previous difficulties:Your edits to Schizophrenia Please do not remove the schizophrenia and violence section without prior discussion on the article's talk page. A consensus of editors has agreed that this content should remain in the article. --Muchness 21:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I am finding the vandalism of this page quite annoying...I wonder if there isn't some way to better stop it other than constantly having to check edits?RalphLendertalk 19:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Please do not remove the schizophrenia and violence section without prior discussion on the article's talk page. A consensus of editors has agreed that this content should remain in the article. --Muchness 21:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Your edits to Schizophrenia

message: Please do not delete material from the Schizophrenia page that is referenced and appropriately sourced.  There is a place on the discussion page to discuss the issue...but deleting material as you have might be considered vandalism.  Discussing your concerns on the talk page would be a better (more constructive) approach.  DPetersontalk 21:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a lot of discussion regarding that section of the Schizophrenia article, including an RfC. Every user, as far as I can see, supports its inclusion. You are going against a consensus of everyone, which is disruptive, and if you remove that section again you will be blocked. -- Steel 21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Material on Schizophrenia Page

message: I welcome all concerned parties to comment at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/schizophrenia whilst I look over the dispute fully  Glen  23:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/schizophrenia|Mediation cabal case now open]] 

message: Why is the "Psychosocial influences" section under the causes area?
:Is this comment from Glen S, as above? Is it motivated by a particular belief that psychological and social variables are not causative, or referring to the fact that the section is currently headed psychosocial 'influences' rather than causes (from an edit, by Vaughan I believe, whilst I was creating/expanding this section)
:In my view, this section does belong with the neuro factors but could be headed something like 'psychosocial factors'. According to commonly held biopsychosocial models, neurological, psychological and social factors (or levels of explanation) are (a priori) equally legitimate as potential components of a causal framework. Much of the research, in regard to cog neuroscience as well as psychosocial studies, is correlational or has other issues that leave the debate open (incl. studies of the effects of interventions). Likewise tricky to divide in to onset vs maintenance factors.
:Alternatively the whole area could be called 'causes or influences' (a fuzzy distinction with such a complex, changing, multifactorial condition) EverSince 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the overall section on causitive dimensions should include this subsection "psychosocial factors."  It is presented as a section with information on the psycho-social dimensions of the illness and as caustive factors. DPetersontalk 01:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of "Psychosocial influences" 

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned at the bottom of the introduction that schizoprenia or schizophrenic symptoms were historically thought to represent madness, insanity and even today the perception of schizphrenic symptoms being portraying insanity holds? I find it striking that it is nowhere mentioned in the article. Editor18 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting...what language would you suggest adding? Maybe you could post a suggestion here for comment?DPetersontalk 20:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perceptions 

message: Just a note to let you guys know that you have done an excellent job with this article and hae done the community a huge service. --Dematt 03:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  very helpful 

message: I will hopefully come back after Christmas to find the sites that substantiate two cause of symptoms that will be so labelled.
The first is PPA, an over the counter drug, that was found in many cold medications.  Research has suggested that many people developed these symptoms after flu like symptoms.  The possibility arises that these individuals took some over the counter cold mediations that created the conditions.  PPA is a amphetamine like substance.
The other cause is intestinal problems.  Research suggests that intestinal problems often accompany the disease, and attributed to stress.  There is research to suggest that intestinal problems like IBS and Crohns can damage the chemical absorption system within the body, creating the condition.
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 00:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two causes documented and ignored. 

message: I noted the star denoting this as an FA.  I was, however, surprised to read 12 paragraphs (the lead and the first section) without a citation to support any of it.  This is not FA quality.  Can someone clean this up?  I'll be nominating this for FAR within a week if it remains in this state. Hbdragon88 07:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a summary of the rest of the article, where everything is/should be referenced. However, I'd argue that there's quite a lot of summary with both the lead and the overview. There's a lot of duplication of information. I think this article would be better off a bit shorter, with sections split off into their own articles (Treatment of schizoprenia, etc.). /skagedal... 07:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea of the summary and overview is to give a 'pyramid' structure to the article. i.e. It starts with the main points, then expands further into the overview, then gives full referenced detail in the body of the text. This means a casual reader gets an broad view of the topic if they only read the first few paragraphs. I think it's a good idea to keep these reference-free as it makes reading easier, and, like Skagedal noted, every point in the introduction is covered in more detail and referenced in the later sections. - Vaughan 08:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As the introduction is a summary of the whole of the rest of the article, almost every word would need to be referenced. This would make the paragraph virtually unreadable. You don't have to play 'hide and seek' you just need to go the the contents and look at the relevant section. All fairly straightforward. - Vaughan 16:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also kind of curious about what happened to the FAC. The article had  added to it on 31 January 2006 by Lupin, but I can't find a FAC anywhere in the logs from around that time. Anyone remember? /skagedal... 22:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't feel an article with such high quality information and referencing should be demoted just because it has an easy-to-read overview section. I guess that could be a bit shorter and a few of the key articles linked in perhaps? EverSince 00:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I remember, 'schizophrenia' was among the first batch of articles to get FA status, so you may have to look way back, if it used the current system at all. Your best bet is to look for the point in the history at which FA status was granted. - Vaughan 13:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! I got fooled by the  template. Schizophrenia got added to Wikipedia:Featured articles (then called "brilliant prose") on 21 August 2003. There was no voting like there is now, this is the "FAC". I'll add this information to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Schizophrenia so new visitors won't have to wonder. /skagedal... 16:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: This bit of text has been repeatedly added to the "History" section by an anonymous editor:
:It was an important contribution, made by Meyer-Gross in the late 30s with the description of the oneiroid states, developed in the study of S.Stoyanov (1961) of the oneiroid syndrom in the course of catatonic schizophrenia. It traced the pathway for further interpretations on this specific form of the disease [www.springerlink.com/index/M8857763174102L3.pdf]
I asked for references, which we now got (thank you; although I can't view this article, or even see what it's called...), but I have removed it again. This information, in this form, does not seem very fitting to this article.  I don't know if the theory of "oneroid states" is relevant to an article on schizophrenia (I don't think so, I've never heard of it, but I'm no expert), but in this form, it is certainly not fitting. The article is to be written to an audience who are not to be expected to already know a lot on the subject, so if you don't know what "oneiroid" is or who "Meyer-Gross" is, this paragraph is just confusing. Maybe you should consider writing an article on oneiroid syndrome?
Anyway: Please discuss this issue here before adding this bit again. /skagedal... 13:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oneiroid states 

message: I would be grateful to know if there would be objection to, or reversion of, rewording the bit on violence to include (with sources): a point about the link between ongoing victimization and committing violent acts, merging this with the points already there about childhood abuse and the relative likelihood of violence by or against the self; a point to clarify that it is not being suggested that because a person has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, any violent act they commit is due to schizophrenia rather than other aspects of a person and those with whom they interact (unless this is being suggested by anyone); a point about conflict within the family environment, perhaps the most common setting of violence related to schizophrenia; and a balanced point about interventions (medication/psychotherapy/other services), including issues of adherence and adverse effects, addressed separately to the above but still within that section. EverSince 16:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you post your specific suggestion/wording here?  If you put here what you want to remove and what you want to add, the other editors can comment and we can build consensus.  DPetersontalk 18:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi EverSince, I think this is an excellent idea. I'm just keen that the main thrust of the article reflects the mainstream opinion on schizophrenia as far as possible (i.e. the consensus opinion in the literature) rather than simply our personal interpretations of the evidence (whether that's mine, yours or anyone else's). Of course, there's plenty of room to add some of caveats and controversies from the literature as well. I look forward to reading some more of your excellent contributions. - Vaughan 16:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't thought of removing anything. So it's just to add some sourced points and reorder/balance. I would prefer to edit the text directly in the usual way, having given an outline of my intentions above since this is a controversial topic. I didn't mean to imply it couldn't then be changed or objected to, of course, but I wanted to check if anyone had any prior objections in principle to my attempting any of the above. If they do, I will address the specific wording here as you suggest EverSince 16:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, and I also think that is very important Vaughan. I believe Wikipedia is intended to cover both mainstream opinion & evidence, + notable minority opinion & evidence, + caveats and controversies (incl. notable info on sources, conflicts of interest etc). To be overall NPOV and not biased by individual interpretations. I look forward to getting there too EverSince 16:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Eversince, The updates you've made to the violence section are excellent. Brilliant work. I'm not sure whether we need much (any?) details about treating violence in schizophrenia as this is quite a specialist topic in forensic psychiatry and might just be too much detail for the general schizophrenia article, but perhaps suitable if the section is expanded into its own article. - Vaughan 16:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance

message: While doing research on this subject, it was noted that many people developed schizophrenic symtpoms after flu like symptoms.
The first logical step would be to think that this may be related to the casue of the flu like symptom, ie virus or bacteria.
Then I stumbled upon the drug PPA or Phenylpropanolamine a common over the counter cold medication that had side effects that were first reported in  1960s.  The drug was not taken off the market until after the year 2000.
The warning was:
"Failure to recognize PPA as an etiological agent in the onset of symptoms usually led to a diagnosis of schizophrenia or mania, lengthy hospitalization, and treatment with substantial doses of neuroleptics or lithium. "
Can you read between those lines...?
A great tragedy for some ?
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schizophrenia and over the counter cold medications. 

message: My comments added underneath each point. - Vaughan 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And my follow-ups below - Raoul NK 10:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the peak incidence of schizophrenia is approximately 18-25, but there is another, smaller peak later in life (previously diagnosed as paraphrenia, now late-onset psychosis (incidence at 40+) or very-late-onset psychosis (incidence 60+). See  for a up-to-date research review on this. - Vaughan 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some autoimmunities can also show this behavior. And also there may be a two slightly different forms of autoimmunity (of course, this requires careful work). - Raoul NK 10:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no dementia in schizophrenia. The name was changed from dementia praecox precisely because there is no rapid cognitive decline. Although the mortality rate is high, this is generally due to secondary factors (suicide, substance abuse etc). Psychosis itself is not neurotoxic. - Vaughan 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Febrile schizophrenia has a high risk of lethal outcome. - Raoul NK 10:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: About 'death from psychosis itself': this seems to be a terminological dispute. In overwhelming majority of cases we see only psychotic symptoms and therefore call this disease a psychosis. But if the same pathogenetic process lead to fatal damage of brain, can we speak about 'death from schizophrenia itself'? I say yes. - Raoul NK 08:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not necessarrily, many people will have one psychotic episode only and / or will show no cognitive decline despite ongoing psychosis. - Vaughan 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also true for some autoimmunities (possibility of only one attack per life). - Raoul NK 10:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: True, but so can just about anything. - Vaughan 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: True. - Vaughan 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Although the effect is small. - Vaughan 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't found a researches on correlation between different autoimmunities (e.g. between rheumatoid arthritis and type 1 diabetes). Maybe, it has the same order. On the other hand, schizophrenia has negative correlation with cancer. This may be interpreted as increased circumspection of autoimmunity. - Raoul NK 10:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why don't you write something here, with appropriate references that are verifiable and then other editors can comment and help.  Also, pls remember to sign your posts with the four '~'
DPetersontalk 13:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the important thing is to reflect the mainstream literature, rather than our own opinions. There is actually very little research on this, although fleshing out the section which you kindly added (and I think is a valuable addition to the article) is definitely worth it. - Vaughan 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, an encyclopedia article should have reliable and verifiable sources and not POV.RalphLendertalk 16:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, sorry, I just follow by Vaughan's example. I have added signatures for all the statements and paragraph breaks. Is this correct now (sorry if no)? - Raoul NK 08:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem...it just makes it difficult to follow the thread of one editor's thought if there are interjections by other editors into the first editor's statements.  The indentations allow one to follow the back and forth.  I also think Ralph's note about signing is so that we can follow who is saying what....sort of a way to get to know each other better; at leat that's my view. DPetersontalk 13:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Autoimmune theory

message: Just wondering, schitzophernia is seeing things and hearing things etc., but what about fantacy? What I mean is what if a person constantly lived in a fantacy world(metaphorivally speaking)because they dislike the "real world"? What is the person constantly talks to themselves and even getting into arguments with ones self? What is the person acted out situation of their fantacy's regularly? What are the sick with? Schitzophernia? I doubt it and I know it's not multi-personality disorder because the person is aware of what if going on and does it as a retreat to a safe place. It is something I have always woundered about. Typicaly the person whith these symptoms would to this in private and with out anyone knowing and with out any intention of telling anyone about it. It is a question lest unanswered for so long.
167.135.18.57 18:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps your question is about unprofessional meaning a term 'schizophrenia'. Of course, every case should be regarded thoroughly by experienced, well-wishing psychiatrist. I guess, even if a person escapes in his/her fantastic world completely and convinces himself/herself of reality of his/her dreams then, in many cases, this can be unrelated to subject and interpreted, at most, as a neurotic symptom or psychopathic trait and can be a task for a sympathizing psychotherapy rather than pharmacology. Unfortunately there were too many speculations about subject especially in unfree countries. I hope we shall give an objective immunological approaches to diagnostics and non-neuroleptic treatment of schizophrenia in not so far future (see autoimmune section).  - Raoul NK 18:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question left unanswered 

message: User:Mihai cartoaje continues to vandalize this page by adding the POV tag without engaging in any disucssion.  If you review that editor's talk page (note, you will have to go into the history to read a version edited by another editor since Mihai cartoaje removes the numerous references to his un-wiki-like conduct) you will see that this has been an ongoing problem with this editor. DPetersontalk 14:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sad but true. I have schizophrenia page on my watchlist and contemplate this tug-of-POV-tags quite often. --CopperKettle 14:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is time to file notice in the proper location to see about having him banned from editing this article.  Does anyone know what the proper procedure is and where I go to initiate that?  I will be glad to file the necessary report or start this process. MarkWood 21:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the proper place to leave a complaint is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported  I've done so.MarkWood 13:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Vandalism]] by [[User:Mihai cartoaje]]

message: The treatment subsections mix up meds/hospitals on the one hand and therapies/community services on the other. This seems to be building assumptions into the structure. I plan to split it instead into the different therapies (pharma/ect/psych/social) and, separately but obviously linked, the different modes/settings of health services (inpatient, outpatient, community (incl. ACT, supported housing etc)) EverSince 15:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps as subsections of the larger section on Treatment? RalphLendertalk 19:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Perhaps calling it Treatments and Services or something like that. EverSince 19:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur DPetersontalk 00:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  therapies/services 

message: Hi Eversince, psychosocial typically means factors including both psychological and social processes (i.e. see Reber's Dictionary of Psychology). I notice there's stuff in the paragraph about processes that aren't explicitly social (e.g. latent inhibition, attentional bias, source monitoring), hence my suggestion for a title change to 'Cognitive and psychosocial factors' as these aren't covered elsewhere. - Vaughan 20:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Vaughan. I think that's a fair point about a common definition, although I think the section content is in line with it in this context, and cognitive processes are also covered in the 'neuropsychology' section. I don't really mind if you want to change it back. p.s. could move this talk in to the 'causes' discussion above for continuity EverSince 20:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the change in section title is fine...provides more detail.  While psycho-social factors would include cognitive factors, the new title is more explicit.  DPetersontalk 00:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychosocial heading