Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Featured articleSchizophrenia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 24, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 26, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
October 18, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
October 24, 2005Today's featured articleMain Page
June 24, 2007Featured article reviewKept
October 13, 2008Featured article reviewKept
May 2, 2011Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
Toolbox

Template:Active editnotice

American or British English?

This article has a mixture of American and British English spelling, e.g., behavior vs. behaviour. There are not a lot of such differences, but it would help in the long term to post the standard notice at the top of the Talk page, e.g., {{American English}}, and on the article page, e.g, {{American English editnotice}}. I would do it but I can't recall the type of English used when the article began.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toss a coin But seriously, we can look at an early revision Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But for the coin toss should we use a dime or a shilling? ;^]   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 14:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was a mix in 2003 too. Maybe go with US English as DSM5 is American, and "disorganized schizophrenia" looks more natural to me than "disorganised schizophrenia".....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disorganized looks pretty disorganised to me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Yank but IMHO British pommy is more expressive. My mates will call me yampy, but I'll support the Queen's English if that's the consensus. (Seriously, either is fine with me.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 14:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Addition of new section entitled Etymology

   Information to be added or removed: The term Schizophrenia comes from the Greek "Schizo-" meaning "Split" and the Greek "-Phrenia" meaning "the mind".
   Explanation of issue: Add new section to discuss the origins of the terminology. 
   References supporting change: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/schizo  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-phrenia

66.90.153.184 (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, this etymology is given: "The word schizophrenia—which translates roughly as "splitting of the mind" and comes from the Greek roots schizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-, "mind")". Your source states: "Origin of schizo- < Greek, combining form representing schízein to part, split" and "Origin of -phrenia < New Latin < Greek phren- (stem of phrḗn) mind + -ia -ia". Why would you replace the full etymology by some incomplete etymology using schizo- and -phrenia, that are actually not words in Greek? Wimpus (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The content currently in the article is much better sourced and much more accurate. Sceptre (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment - experimental?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/03/radical-new-approach-to-schizophrenia-treatment-begins-trial suggests a treatment based on an infective agent. The scientist referred to has 2 refs in the article - so presumably is not a crank. Can someone follow this up with medical knowledge enough to evaluate if it has merit enough to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FA issues

Casliber, would you have time to work on this FA; it has issues. I haven't gone in depth beyond the lead, but if the number of problems in the lead are indicative of what we might find in the rest of the article, its FA status needs review. These are samples only from the lead.

  • The lead is not in sync with the body. We find conflicting information between the lead and body about prognosis and epidemiology, even based on different dates. When we cite hard data, such as on prognosis and epidemiology, the data cited in the lead should be the same cited in the body.
  • And those very numbers in the lead and body diverge from this, suggesting that other content might be outdated.
  • There are numerous areas of prose in the lead that need clarification:
    • "strange speech", can strange be better explained? Mork had strange speech with Mindy, but didn't have schizophrenia.
    • During diagnosis, a person's culture must also be taken into account. I don't explicitly object to this sentence, but my query is a) whether this is true of most DSM conditions, and b) if it belongs in the lead, it is not adequately explained.
    • As of 2013, there is no objective test. This is probably still true in 2019. "no objective test" leaves a reader hanging ... not all readers will understand that means that diagnosis cannot be conferred based on any test. (Example: There are no specific tests for diagnosing Tourette's.)
    • All of this needs to be synced with the body and/or updated:
      • About 0.3% to 0.7% of people are affected by schizophrenia during their lifetimes.[9] In 2013, there were an estimated 23.6 million cases globally.[17] Males are more often affected and onset is on average earlier in age.[2] About 20% of people eventually do well, and a few recover completely.[6] About 50% have lifelong impairment.[18]
        • "do well" is vague.

It is not a long article; I am hoping you will find time to comb through it to identify and correct anything else. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh....not again.....but yes. Time for some housekeeping I suspect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update the epidemiology.
With respect to "About 20% of people eventually do well, and a few recover completely." How do you want to summarize the source? Having the source present makes it much easier. Source is the DSM5 page 102 that says "The course appears to be favorable in about 20% of those with schizophrenia, and a small number of individuals are reported to recover completely."
With respect to "no objective test" how do you wish to convey this? Agree year is not really needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On "do well" unless the DSM specifies what they are referring to with the word "favorable", then we should use a source that does (do they mean these people do not require medication, do not require hospitalization, do not require social services ... what?) On "no objective test", I gave a sample from Tourette syndrome; if the source used does not give tighter wording, then another source could be used that does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can use "favorable" if you wish. Just was being careful not to paraphrase to closely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing one ill-defined phrase (do well) to another ill-defined word (favorable) does not solve the problem. The reader needs to know in what way these 20% "do well"; if the source does not explain it, a better source should be found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ideal here is to change to something better-defined and more concrete such as no symptoms/minimal symptoms/return to work or study, which means going back to the literature, which means checking on latest Review Articles. This will require some time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERCITE in the lead

Additionally, the lead is overcited, which does not aid the reader, does not conform with guidelines, and (as indicated elsewhere) has only been done to facilitate a different, off-Wiki project. (While it is understandable that translators may find their task easier if citations glob up the lead, someone who isn't familiar with the entire topic, the body of the article, and the relevant MEDRS-compliant sources probably has no business translating articles to begin with.) Globbing up the lead with unnecessary citations should not be done in an FA, which must comply with policy and guideline.

I suggest the unnecessary citations on the following text be removed from the lead, which is intended to be a summary. Citation in the body for information not likely to be challenged will suffice; none of this is extraordinary, surprising, likely to be challenged, or involves data or quotes-- this is common info available anywhere:

The versions that passed FAC and FAR did not include this unnecessary overcitation in the lead. Unless these issues are corrected, schizophrenia may need to go to FAR yet again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy or guideline which states leads should not contain citations. Citations make dealing with content disputes such as we see here way easier. So I for one strongly oppose removing them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LEADCITE is the relevant guideline. (I never stated that "leads should not contain citations".) Featured articles must conform with MOS. There is not likely to ever be a dispute over any of the text I highlighted-- that is why the guideline is worded the way it is. And by forcing citations to each element of the lead, we prevent FAs from presenting compelling summary leads, and force them instead to be choppy prose, bogged down by unnecessary little numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was simple commenting out citations for a while. But lots of people would not see the commented out citation and add little {{cn}} tags. The big issue is our readers more or less expect them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sandy Georgia on all points raised. The argument that a lot of 'cn's' would be generated could simply be dealt with by stating that the items are sourced in the body - it's clear that the lead is to be just a summary. And to state that it's what readers expect - comes from where? I have never seen a post on any page complaining of the lack of citations in its lead. Also there are many refs that are duplicated in the infobox.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Iztwoz as to never seeing such a problem, but even if we did see this problem, what better place than an FA to explain to editors who lack basic knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guideline that leads are summaries and that citations are only required in certain instances. By breaching best practice on FAs, we are leaving the impression all over Wikipedia and medical content that fully cited leads are required.

Much worse, though, is that our medical articles no longer have the compelling lead summaries required for FAs, because we are forced to choppy prose that cites each little bit.

Commenting out citations does not address the fundamental problem, and indicates you may not understand what the problem is. It is not that we are citing unnecessarily; it is that we are writing leads in ways that forces each choppy little piece to be cited, rather than writing a compelling summary of text that may involved multiple sources. Leads should be written in a way that the reader gets a broad overview and enticed to continue reading-- not as a collection of independent, cited factoids (that are boring and tedious to read). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer a lead without citations too - the most obvious reason for adding a cite is a highly controversial fact. However, I don't think there are any that stand out here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not having to search the body to find the support for the sentence in the lead. A lack of citations makes it more complicated to update or see how old the support for a statement is. We should be trying to write for the widest audience possible. To do that requires using shorter sentences. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)
The general and accepted rule for the lead is that it is a summary of the body of the article. All points raised in the lead will be covered in the body, and often in more detail together with citations. So that a reader will know that the contents of the lead are sourced; so where is the desire or need to search for validation in the lead itself? I would think the main aim of the lead is to provide a readable introduction and hopefully generate and hold the interest of the reader. This is not the outcome achieved by stilted sentences often over simplified, and an intrusive use of citations.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having lots of citations in the lead is something I would expect from C-class articles, not FA-class ones. It is the job of the editors to make sure that all of the information in the lead is sourced in the main body. If it is not, it should be removed.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have long come to the conclusion that the leads should be cited because a significantly large number of editors see non-cited text in the lead and simply remove it, or if you are lucky add citation need tag to text they dispute or query, assuming it is not cited. It also makes non-cited text more tempting for some editors to edit and change without referring to any reference because it is not immediately clear what reference refers to the lead text. The readers cannot quickly locate references to know how recent the sources are for the text in the lead. So yeah, I definitely favour citing the lead for verification purposes. It also makes it look professional and verified to our readers which we want as many people only read the leads and don’t trust Wikipedia text that is not cited.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this article we have a WHO reference that is only used in the lead and not used in the body of the article at all. Andmuch of the lead has multiple citing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recurring problem throughout medical articles, as leads are being altered without keeping the body in sync. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CITEVAR

This article uses the vauthor format for cite journal, yet many recent additions are changing that style. I will put the article in use to correct the changes to citation style, but don't want to do that while the article is actively being edited. Who is doing this? FAs must have a consistent citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Beautiful Mind

I am changing the inset to indicate that the BOOK, not the MOVIE, was about John Nash. The book was an actual biography, while the movie completely sensationalized his issues -- well beyond reality. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, change made but it doesn't show up. Is this because of the "semi-protected" status of the page? Again, the movie took a single sliver of his life and then embellished it. One cannot honestly say that the movie was about him. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Schizophrenia&oldid=932020654

Leave a Reply