Active discussions
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.
Article milestones
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

Please add the following information to the articleEdit

Research on brain samples shows that people with Schizophrenia have disrupted arginine metabolism in their brains.

They show significantly different arginine levels and arginase levels compared to the control group.

2600:1010:B16F:8081:F979:D85C:56CD:13B8 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this info, hopefully it can be incorporated when hopefully the sections on Cause and Mechanism are updated. It may be able to be entered in a subheading of Subgroups. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Daughter articlesEdit

This article has daughter articles to try and improve the structure of the (massive) amount of material published (even restricting to secondary sources). We need to be mindful of Wikipedia:Summary style. So we have:

not to mention articles on antipsychotics, clozapine etc. There is information in the main article that is in less detail or absent in many of these articles. The article is huge. I am thinking maybe we need an editnotice or something to stop the loading of the main article as it is oversized as is. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

YES! This is 9,000 words of prose; a size around 7,000 is much more readable, and maintainable. Too Much Detail! I suggest Management is the best place to cut and better emply summary style, followed by Mechanisms, and then bits and pieces everywhere else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The problem has been that much of the whole page was outdated with old refs - and many of the daughter articles were likewise outdated or in need of work (in my view). Clearly a lot of the newer material can be summarised and moved to the daughter articles when the daughter articles are more up to date. As said there are many articles and they are in need of work. Both daughter articles on causes and mechanisms are really dated - it probably would be a good move for these ones to be worked on first to warrant the main article hatnotes and then resummarised on main page. ? --Iztwoz (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
But you can still move text there now, even if those articles need more tune up later. They aren't featured, this article is, and this article needs to meet FA criteria. If this article is mostly updated now (it is certainly MUCH better than it was when I said it needed to go to [[WP:FAR), focus could shift to updating the sub-articles, and only summarizing back to here what is key and has mention in the highest quality most recent reviews. This article is beginning to sprawl, we want it to be a readable encyclopedic summary, and needs to be an overview, making better use of summary style. The article has more than doubled in readable prose since its last FA review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree. clarify what needs moving first and then get to daughter articles. Feel free to update daughter articles as we go.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Must admit to a general ignorance of overview style of main page. (Few articles have so many daughters).--Iztwoz (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Copying within WikipediaEdit

Remember WP:CWW— we must attribute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There's info in Mechanisms that is not sourced to a review and could move to the sub-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Remember to include a link! [1] If you do not link to the article in edit summary, then someone later has to go back and add copying within templates to article talk, and we end up with a mess like Talk:Dyslexia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking for citations for claim I madeEdit

On Open Dialogue (a psychological intervention or psychosis that is being trialed in several countries). I wrote, regarding its pyschological model that delusions in schizophrenia have metaphorical meaniing

"This understanding differs radically from common psychiatric models of psychosis that view it as being caused by a biological process in the brain, such as the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia."

I didn't think to add a citation (being quite familiar with the literature on the topic, and this sentence effectively being a sign post to say, "hey don't use this for a complete understand of psyschosis - you should know a bunch of people disagree". I had difficulty actually citing this however (I spent half an hour or so looking for citations. It seems quite difficult to actually get research in academic papers that represents the view of academics themselves.

I thought that someone here might immediately have a reference to hand, be able to advise me on how to cite this sort of claim (e.g. would a textbook work for the "accepted understanding", this feels like it's getting into WP:OR territory because this citation is startng to get a little "logic" to it), or have dealt with this sort of issue before.

Thanks for any help.

Edit: If anyone wishes to provide any assitance please reply to this message of Talk:Open Dialogue as (see below) this conversation is likely to be viewed as off topic.

--Talpedia (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Talpedia: Hi, it seems like you are asking for assistance with another page. May I suggest posting this to the talk page of the subject, or to WP:MED's talk page instead? This page is really for discussion regarding the Schizophrenia page, per Talk page guidelines.―Biochemistry🙴 19:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I'll post on WP:MED. Don't think posting on the page itself will work very well, I wrote that page fairly recently and the information I want is related to the theoretical model of psychois / schizophrenia. My reasoning that that this other page is very much related to this page, and this was the most related place to post. I could probably validly verbatim include the contents Open Dialogue in this page (if that page were not to exist)v. I've just read the talk page guidelines. I'm not actually sure discussion of related page *is* off-topic as per the rules. It's not specifically addressed, and we have the sentence "Often, there are a number of related pages that would benefit from one single talk page for discussions". --Talpedia (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Talpedia: Thank you. Regarding the talk page guidelines, WP:TALK#TOPIC states:

"Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article."

Despite the subject similarity, the talk page of the article in question (± the talk page of an interested WikiProject) is usually the best place for such conversations—not the article of a related subject. For instance, although aspirin is used to prevent heart attacks—thereby relating the two subjects—improving or inquiring about references for the Aspirin page should not be done on the talk page of Heart attack. If you would like to discuss adding content from Open Dialogue to Schizophrenia, then I would be happy to participate here. I apologize if I misconstrued your intent.―Biochemistry🙴 22:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The purpose of the request is quite clear. I'm looking for a reference showing that the main understanding of psychois / schizophrenia amongst psychiatrists is a biological model for another article. I fully appreciate the usual situation and have explained why this doesn't apply - the article is a new stub article, and the claim is specifically one about schizoprhenia / psychosis. If someone were looking for a reference for "Most doctors think high blood pressure is correlate with heart disease" then the heart disease page might be the correct page to ask for help sourcing citation for this claim. I'm clearly discussing the improvement for *an* article, in a very targetted fashion, which would seem to be what your quote is about. *Anyway*, this is a boring technical argument which I doubt will be productive and risks preventing anyone who would provide me with assistance f rom doing so, particularly given you are ignoring points I consider relevant, and fiddling with the level of generality to make your argument correct. Anyway, I have updated the original post to refer to the the open dialogue talk page, and will move any reply here that address the subject matter (rather than continuing on this technical policy discussion) to that page alerting the user to the fact on their user page. This will prevent any further discussion here, which suits your purposes, while also allowing any interested party to reply there (though to be honest the original post was a bit of a long-shot anyway!). The argument that the body of the discussion should happen there seems quite reasonable. I will consider your arguments when requesting help going forward (but again to be honest, I don't expect a similar situation to arise). --Talpedia (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


This is a vague, unhelpful, and poor statement for a featured article ... and neither does history of schizophrenia explain the changes from DSM4 to 5 ...

  • DSM-5 was published in 2013 and introduced changes to DSM IV.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Avatar Therapy?Edit

I work to add reasonably recent Cochrane reviews to relevant Wikipedia pages. I have this one (below) related to a treatment called Avatar Therapy. I have not found a reference to it anywhere on Wikpedia but I have found a lot on the Internet in general, it would appear relevant and important. Any comments or feedback from a more senior editor on this on adding a description and citation of this in Section 6.3 of the article? Here's the citation: [1]


  1. ^ Aali, G; Kariotis, T; Shokraneh, F (8 May 2020). "Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders". The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 5: CD011898. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011898.pub2. PMID 32413166.
This article is more of a broad topic overview, using summary style; I see that particular review as more relevant at management of schizophrenia. If it is summarized vback to here, at most a clause will do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Schizophrenia" page.