SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →Ordering of sections: fix link |
Ozzie10aaaa (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 228: | Line 228: | ||
:#: "Consisteny between articles" is not a requirement of any policy or guideline or [[WP:WIAFA]] for this article; consistency in order is a personal preference. [[Doc James|James]], we need to hear from you '''on this article''' why you think your preference provides a preferred narrative for the benefit of our readers. This is not a !vote; on Wikipedia, we actually '''discuss''' to come to consensus. If you cannot provide a reason for preferring this narrative, '''for this article''', you have no valid reason to have installed a personal preference, via edit warring. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 10:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
:#: "Consisteny between articles" is not a requirement of any policy or guideline or [[WP:WIAFA]] for this article; consistency in order is a personal preference. [[Doc James|James]], we need to hear from you '''on this article''' why you think your preference provides a preferred narrative for the benefit of our readers. This is not a !vote; on Wikipedia, we actually '''discuss''' to come to consensus. If you cannot provide a reason for preferring this narrative, '''for this article''', you have no valid reason to have installed a personal preference, via edit warring. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 10:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
:#::This is an editorial judgement call. Yes there are positive and negative. I believe the benefits of consistency to our readers outweighs the benefits of the claimed improved flow and the negatives of having these discussions one by one over our 10,000 disease related articles. I have provided a reason, you appear to simple not accept it as a valid one. Meh. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 10:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
:#::This is an editorial judgement call. Yes there are positive and negative. I believe the benefits of consistency to our readers outweighs the benefits of the claimed improved flow and the negatives of having these discussions one by one over our 10,000 disease related articles. I have provided a reason, you appear to simple not accept it as a valid one. Meh. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 10:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::I would agree w/ Doc James rationale--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 10:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
and all those preferring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schizophrenia&oldid=934581004 this] order (by Cas Liber), comment below here |
and all those preferring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schizophrenia&oldid=934581004 this] order (by Cas Liber), comment below here |
||
:# [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 10:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
:# [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 10:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:55, 7 January 2020
Schizophrenia 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 24, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Toolbox |
---|
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)
Toss a coinBut seriously, we can look at an early revision Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Disorganized looks pretty disorganised to me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
Is this sorted, so it can be archived? There's an American English template on the page, and when we set up Editnotices, this was not identified as British along with other FAs that were. Support American English here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
- Sigh....not again.....but yes. Time for some housekeeping I suspect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Another:
and a few recover completely
. The source is not freely available, but it's probably not wrong to state that mention of the prognosis for "a few" is probably unwarranted in the lead. Also, the source is ten years old. What is meant by "a few", should this be in the lead, if so can the reason be pinpointed, and can this source on prognosis be updated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
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:
- Schizophrenia is a mental illness characterized by abnormal behavior, disorganized speech, and being out of touch with reality.
- Other symptoms may include false beliefs, unclear or confused thinking, hearing voices that do not exist, reduced social engagement and emotional expression, and lack of motivation.
- Symptoms typically come on gradually, begin in young adulthood, and, in many cases, never resolve.
- Genetic factors include a variety of common and rare genetic variants.
- Diagnosis is based on observed behavior, the person's reported experiences and reports of others familiar with the person.
- Social problems, such as long-term unemployment, poverty, and homelessness, are common.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
- Putting article in use to clean up citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Causes
I do not have access to the full text. Should
- People with a family history of schizophrenia who have a transient psychosis have a 20–40% chance of being diagnosed one year later.[1]
that "one year later" be "within one year of the transient episode"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Drake RJ, Lewis SW (March 2005). "Early detection of schizophrenia". Current Opinion in Psychiatry. 18 (2): 147–50. doi:10.1097/00001504-200503000-00007. PMID 16639167.
Also, this section has stubby paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Mechanisms
This section appears to be overcited; why is this happening? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, the article uses summary style to summarize content to sub-articles, and Mechanisms of schizophrenia is a sub-article; can this section be trimmed to the summary article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Management
Can this be updated?
- As of 2015 it is unclear if transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is useful for schizophrenia.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Prognosis
Also looks to be overcited, and if two almost 15-year-old sources is the best we can do, one wonders if the text belongs here or needs to be updated. Similar throughout this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Schizophrenia and smoking have shown a strong association in studies worldwide.[1][2]
References
- ^ de Leon J, Diaz FJ (July 2005). "A meta-analysis of worldwide studies demonstrates an association between schizophrenia and tobacco smoking behaviors". Schizophrenia Research. 76 (2–3): 135–57. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2005.02.010. PMID 15949648.
- ^ Keltner NL, Grant JS (November 2006). "Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette". Perspectives in Psychiatric Care. 42 (4): 256–61. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6163.2006.00085.x. PMID 17107571.
Can this be updated to a more recent review by the same author, Laursen 2014, PMID 24313570 which says "about 20 years"? I cannot access the full text of the 2014 paper; the statement is cited to Laursen 2012. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- It results in a decreased life expectancy by 10–25 years.
History
Again, per WP:SS, cannot some of this be trimmed to History of schizophrenia? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Epidemiology
The infobox says 17,000 deaths in 2015 (worldwide??), but the body of the article says 20,000 in 2010. The infobox needs to be synced throughout with the body of the article, and the article needs to be updated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2019
Hello, I would like to change the following sentence: "Evidence for metacognitive training is mixed with some reviews finding benefit and another not" as follows: "Metacognitive training (MCT) has been entered into the treatment guidelines for schizophrenia of the German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN; [161]) following two positive meta-analyses in 2018 [162] and 2019 [163]."
citations: [161] = https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783662593790 [162] = https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29489070 [163] = https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30456821
explanation: The latest (and largest) meta-analyses on metacognitive training were positive. Even the meta-analysis by van Oostehout et al. (2016) had significant effects in favor of metacognitive training when new data was entered (for full text see here: https://search.proquest.com/openview/80a62add2ad5d1219d2d41f6a8861c87/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=35753) Wiki psych21 (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. Not part of general treatment and conflicting meta-analyses and letter to editor only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Caliber: I respectfully ask you to look at the issue again. First, Metacognitive Training (MCT) is now recommended by three different professional organisations (German Psychological Society (DGPs), German Psychiatric Society (DGPPN), Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists), which is worth mentioning itself - I can provide citations for that. Then, the last three (and largest) meta-analyses showed (significant) positive effects. Only one *earlier* meta-analysis (van Oousterhout et al., 2016) with fewer studies was negative (trend in favor of MCT), presumably due to power issues (if studies were added the effect was significant according to the authors (yes, they acknowledged this in a letter to the editor as they could not change the meta-analysis anymore). All latest meta-analyses were published as reguar articles in respected (peer-review) journals. I really think the current sentences needs to be updated --Wiki psych21 (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)wiki psych21
Hello, I would like to add an apology for writing your name wrongly (Caliber - not Cas Liber), Wiki psych21 (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Heh no problem on the name. I just tried looking for a source on the RANZCP and MCT in schizophrenia without success. A pointer would be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Cas Liber, thanks a lot. Here is the full-text link for the citation: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0004867416641195 - the recommendation is provided in the table on page 443 (EBR = evidence-based recommendation), training and evidence is summarized on page 442. If you want, I can also provide the texts and quotes for the German guidelines (incl. translation using deepl.com), yours Wiki psych21 (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Okay good. I have updated the article accordingly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Cas Liber. Thanks a lot. I would be grateful if you could link the entry "metacognitive training" to this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognitive_training - that would be all. Thanks again, Wiki psych21 (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wiki psych21, I have done that here. Please stop reactivating the edit request. Edit requests are designed to bring admin attention to a talk page. Once you already have that attention, and know that people are responding, it is not necessary to use edit request. By adding edit request, you put this page into a category that asks all admins to look in here-- this is no longer necessary. People are responding to your requests. This page is actively followed and editors have engaged with you, so it's not necessary to add an edit request. Thanks for the good info, BTW, and welcome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Cas Liber. Thanks a lot. I would be grateful if you could link the entry "metacognitive training" to this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognitive_training - that would be all. Thanks again, Wiki psych21 (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Okay good. I have updated the article accordingly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Cas Liber, thanks a lot. Here is the full-text link for the citation: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0004867416641195 - the recommendation is provided in the table on page 443 (EBR = evidence-based recommendation), training and evidence is summarized on page 442. If you want, I can also provide the texts and quotes for the German guidelines (incl. translation using deepl.com), yours Wiki psych21 (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Heh no problem on the name. I just tried looking for a source on the RANZCP and MCT in schizophrenia without success. A pointer would be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Brain stimulation
Have trimmed MDPI as it is potentially predatory. Dove Press is not a great publisher. Have moved this to the research section. Added a Cochrane review to provide some balance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Split personality
The sources support the associate occurred within the popular imagination per "the idea of the 'split personality' became explicitly linked in the popular imagination with that of schizophrenia", not that the term officially implied a split personality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- This was changed as sentence as is, implies a current misconception - feel that this is very outdated and not now a usual association.--Iztwoz (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Ordering of sections
IMO it is reasonable to keep the standard ordering (as mentioned in WP:MEDMOS) to maintain some consistency within the layout of our articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:MEDMOS does not have a "standard ordering" it has "suggested headings", and the flow of the narrative is more important than a forced order. Not all articles lend themselves to the same order. Please do not make major changes to a Featured article without first discussing to achieve consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have restored it to the ordering it had when it passed FA its last FA review in 2011.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- YOu are edit warring again; whatever reason you want to give, a pattern of edit warring is a problem.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- It has been in this order for 9 years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Self-revert and discuss. MEDMOS does not determine the order of the narrative, and "how it passed FAR" is irrelevant without discussion. There is no deadline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- It has been in this order as I mentioned for more than 9 years. I agree there is no deadline. While ask for further opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, you will post to WT:MED; this pattern needs to stop, and you need to engage in collaborative discussion to achieve consensus. The ANI shone a light on the "Me, too" !voting pattern at WPMED, so I suggest you engage the discussion. And self-revert as a show of good faith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- It has been in this order as I mentioned for more than 9 years. I agree there is no deadline. While ask for further opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Self-revert and discuss. MEDMOS does not determine the order of the narrative, and "how it passed FAR" is irrelevant without discussion. There is no deadline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- It has been in this order for 9 years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- YOu are edit warring again; whatever reason you want to give, a pattern of edit warring is a problem.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have restored it to the ordering it had when it passed FA its last FA review in 2011.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The order the headings are on MEDMOS (at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes) is not proscriptive. There is nothing in that section that says they have to be in that order. In fact the initial author said as much. Doc James do you agree or disagree that symptoms/signs and diagnosis (i.e. based on symptoms) have alot in common and that hence it makes sense that the second follows the first? Also, it makes sense to place epidemiology before causes? But given we're after consensus, let's ask a wider field. Pinging @WhatamIdoing, Bluerasberry, Colin, and Jfdwolff: as editors who have discussed ordering of sections in the medmos guideline archives. And placing a note on the med page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Having a fairly consistent ordering of sections across articles on diseases / health conditions in my opinion helps our readers who us use extensively quickly find the content they are looking for. And it helps our editors rapidly determine were new additions to our articles should go and were information is missing. In my opinion that benefit outweighs the benefit of grouping them as you suggest. User:Ozzie10aaaa has for example done a lot of working in putting our nearly 10,000 articles on health conditions in a somewhat consistent layout. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Choice of ordering of sections
So folks. All those in favour of this order (by Doc James) , comment here.
- Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and that needs to stop right here, right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I support this order. I has been in use since 2011 without issue. Having some consistency between articles is useful in helping both our readers digest our content and our editors maintain our content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- "Consisteny between articles" is not a requirement of any policy or guideline or WP:WIAFA for this article; consistency in order is a personal preference. James, we need to hear from you on this article why you think your preference provides a preferred narrative for the benefit of our readers. This is not a !vote; on Wikipedia, we actually discuss to come to consensus. If you cannot provide a reason for preferring this narrative, for this article, you have no valid reason to have installed a personal preference, via edit warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is an editorial judgement call. Yes there are positive and negative. I believe the benefits of consistency to our readers outweighs the benefits of the claimed improved flow and the negatives of having these discussions one by one over our 10,000 disease related articles. I have provided a reason, you appear to simple not accept it as a valid one. Meh. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- "Consisteny between articles" is not a requirement of any policy or guideline or WP:WIAFA for this article; consistency in order is a personal preference. James, we need to hear from you on this article why you think your preference provides a preferred narrative for the benefit of our readers. This is not a !vote; on Wikipedia, we actually discuss to come to consensus. If you cannot provide a reason for preferring this narrative, for this article, you have no valid reason to have installed a personal preference, via edit warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would agree w/ Doc James rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
and all those preferring this order (by Cas Liber), comment below here
- Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and that needs to stop right here, right now.
Anyone else is welcome to post a dfferent order and explain why. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Cas, this "me, too" voting trend that has plagued WT:MED for several years now needs to stop. We need to hear from BOTH OF YOU why the narrative works better one way or another. MEDMOS is guideline, not a policy, and it does not require a certain order. James cannot use MEDMOS to install his preferred order. You both need to explain the benefits; I know you, Cas, thought about the order when you re-ordered it. James has made no effort to discuss, so we should hear from him before !voting. And I strongly suggest that anyone showing up here from WT:MED consider the ANI thread that discussed this very problem, and remember that discretionary sanctions are in place right now for WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)