Talk:Schizophrenia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() Archives |
---|
Contents |
[edit] should be archived
This talk page is already 181 kilobytes long. Shouldn't it be archived? It makes it slow to edit here. —Cesar Tort 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds fine to me; how is this done?DPetersontalk 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can do it. But first I'd like to know if there are no objections. —Cesar Tort 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea Cesar. No objections from me. - Vaughan 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK: I’ll do it. —Cesar Tort 00:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- NO!!! Don't do it! the government will kill me if you do!!!!—PoidLover
- OK: I’ll do it. —Cesar Tort 00:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea Cesar. No objections from me. - Vaughan 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can do it. But first I'd like to know if there are no objections. —Cesar Tort 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DISPUTED MATERIAL
It seems that it is the following that is disputed:
[edit] Schizophrenia and violence
<snip>
However, as pointed out above, this issue has been discussed in the Request for Comment.RalphLendertalk 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Retain/include disputed section
- RalphLendertalk 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)the material is well referenced with reliable and verifiable sources. In addition, the RFC clearly shows that the vast majority of editors want the material included, based on reliable and valid and verifiable sources.
- Per above and arguments raised in previous RFC. --Muchness 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- (uncivil comment removed) The section is referenced by the latest review articles in the area, and refutes the myth that people with schizophrenia are necessarily violent. - Vaughan 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, include and keep...this material is verifiable. If an editor disputes it, better to include/add alternative material with appropriate sources and references which meets the Wikipedia standard of being verifiable. DPetersontalk 13:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Exclude/delete disputed section
- No other article has violence statistics. --Mihai cartoaje 23:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment
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: [1]. --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)
[edit] viral causes discussion
In the recently archived discussion someone made a mention of a problem in the viral etiology discussion, where one writer wrote, "viral infections during the third trimester (4-6 months) of pregnancy." This was clearly an error as the third trimester of pregnancy is from the 6th to the 9th month of pregnancy. In researching the the references listed, as well as a web search, all references to this issue state that, "Patients whose mothers were in their second trimester of pregnancy (between four and six months pregnant) during the epidemic were more likely to be diagnosed schizophrenic than those whose mothers were in their first or third trimester or those born before the virus appeared http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_n3_v22/ai_6406131 ." Since edits are disabled by non-registered users, can someone make that correction please? It should read, "Some researchers postulate that the correlation is due to viral infections during the second trimester (4-6 months) of pregnancy." Actually, strictly speaking, there is no reference for what "some researchers postulate," so a better edit would remove that phrase and replace it with something like, "Some studies have shown that the correlation is due to viral infections during the second trimester (4-6 months) of pregnancy." and then reference Brown, A.S. (2006) Prenatal infection as a risk factor for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32 (2), 200-2, which is reference 35 on the reference list. RAA 65.10.35.73 06:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Drugs effect on negative symptoms
It says that antipsychotic medication is less usefull against negative symptoms than positive symptoms. These drugs may create negative symptoms. So it should not be hinted that the drugs are somewhat helpfull against negative symptoms.
[edit] Eugen Bleuler phrase
why it was deleted ??? He wrote: "The patients that I have observed do not respond to situations as they should; they are frightened by what is not there, yet they remain indifferent to what is. It is as if they have a split mind." ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.137.6.71 (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
Categories: Wikipedia featured articles | Old requests for peer review | Wikipedia Version 0.5 | Wikipedia CD Selection-0.5 | Wikipedia Release Version | FA-Class Version 0.5 articles | Social sciences and society Version 0.5 articles | FA-Class Version 0.7 articles | Social sciences and society Version 0.7 articles | FA-Class medicine articles | Mid-importance medicine articles | Psychology articles with comments | FA-Class psychology articles | High-importance psychology articles | Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (Portuguese) | Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (Romanian) | Wikipedia pages referenced by the press