Talk:Catastrophic schizophrenia

I would like to merge Schizocaria into this article, because it is the same - as both articles agree upon. Unless somebody has some really good arguments against merging, I'll do this tomorrow. Lova Falk talk 09:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. –Syncategoremata (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Critical Reason about my nervious about this topic about, astrology specially zodiac fish...

Catastrophical mistake, is all about this topic. At near past time, I red ona forum topic on a web page about it and this is a reason to be nervous. Actually about topic is about this article is that one girl(that I think that this is wrong) wrote about astrology-shizophernia contact. Wrong is about that: She wrote actually about astrology, but in one sentence(s) she told "...Some times zodiac fish, go to quiet place(be careful about this key)and responce her-his mind but at this point, he-she need only quit place." In topic's following sentences, her wrongable theory is that zodiac fish individual is schizophrenia... Difference at this ponit is: schizophrenia is to close your mind and escape at any situation. But fish don't escape from his(her) mind when try to find solution about his(her) friend. Additional mistake is that, zodiac fish, need secret about his(her) live: This is absolutly not schizophrenia...

netiq69

Editing this page for a class

I'll be making a lot of changes to this article as a part of my psychology class.

Here are some of the sources I'm going to add:

Subtype Progression and Pathophysiologic Deterioration in Early Schizophrenia. McGlashan, Thomas H.; Fenton, Wayne S. Schizophrenia Bulletin, Vol 19(1), 1993, 71-84.

Course Types in Schizophrenia: An Analysis of European and American Studies. Harding, Courtenay M. Schizophrenia Bulletin, Vol 14(4), 1988, 633-643.

Ashley Suk (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ashley! I changed one of the links you provided into a free pdf (instead of a link saying "purchase pdf"). I am very happy with your chosing review articles. However, they are a bit old. If you could find newer sources (less than five years old, or from this century), that would be even better. Especially when it comes to the neuroscientific aspects, a lot of progress has been made, which in turn has stimulated understanding and theorizing. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 16:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the help. Unfortunately, all of the sources I can find are definitely very old - the few recent mentions of catastrophic schizophrenia only state that it's an obsolete term. I am stuck using the old sources, I'm afraid! Ashley Suk (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay! Lova Falk talk 19:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing stub status

I'm removing the Wikipedia:Stub status from this article, because it no longer meets the criteria. I think it has advanced beyond "Start" status, as well. But, as I'm not an expert on schizophrenia (I am a social psychologist), I'm not sure whether it's C, B, or A in terms of quality now. I'm also putting it in the "Low Importance" category because it's an obsolete term.

Full disclosure: I am Ashley Suk's instructor for the class project in which she revised this article. ScottPKingPhD (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scott! Good work by Ashley Suk, the article is much better now. On my talk page you also asked me if I thought it's worth nominating for Good Article status.

I don't usually bother with quality ratings and Good article nominations, but I suspect this article is not quite there yet.

• the description of the condition is way too short. For instance, what is meant by "deterioration of the personality"? Also the term "psychosis" is a very broad term and I think a more elaborate description of the psychosis would be warranted.
• there is no section on treatment;
• prevalence is not clear (it only says 10-15% of schizophrenics);
• are there (or were there) any theories about why only upper class and intellectuals were affected?
• in the section History, it says: "He stated that catatonic schizophrenia was characterized by..." Is it a mistake to write catatonic instead of catastrophic?
• in the section Decline I would suggest rephrasing the first sentence of that section making it more clear that the number of schizophrenics who received this diagnosis had gone down compared to Bleulers' era;
• in the same section Decline the first two sentences that Ashley Suk added ("In 1980 --- state of 'deteriorated schizophrenia'") feel out of place there (what is the connection of this information with the decline?)
• in the same section Decline it is not quite clear if this diagnosis became obsolete because there were new ways of treating it, or if it was because DSM changed definitions of sub-types - or both??

I'm sorry if I sound overly critical. As I said, I think Ashley Suk did a good job and she really improved the article, but it's a lot of work to upgrade an article to a Good Article status. Kind regards! Lova Falk talk 18:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi all! This is a very interesting article, and I second Lova's comments that Ashley Suk has clearly put a lot of work into it. Many thanks! To expand on Lova's last suggestion for improvements, I found that as a non-expert in Schizophrenia (and a non-expert in most things, for that matter!), I couldn't figure out what the article meant by "obsolete" until the last sentence. That is, until that sentence, it is unclear whether the term is obsolete because it has been replaced by another term for the same condition, or whether it is obsolete because the condition to which it refers represents an older theory about Schizophrenia. Considering that the latter seems to be the case, might it be more appropriate to put this information in the "History" section of the main Schizophrenia article? Otherwise, I would recommend clarifying in the first few sentences that this term refers to an older theory, since that seems to be a key point of the article. The information that "Catastrophic Schizophrenia" was not included in any version of the DSM or the ICD (please correct me if I'm wrong on this) would ideally come toward the beginning of the article as well. Thanks again for all the hard work! Firecatalta (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edited the above to reflect the realization from my second edit on this thread. Must get more sleep! Firecatalta (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ashley here. Thanks for all the kind words! Not bad for my first article. I'm very flattered to have this be nominated for good quality, but I agree that it's not quite there yet. I'll be working on implementing your suggestions! And don't worry about being overly critical - it's the only way things can improve. Thanks again for the encouragement! Ashley Suk (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you did a great job on contributing to the article. You improved it, especially since you basically started from zero because there wasn’t much written on here. The sources you used were reliable, but the only thing that would have been great if they were recent sources but I know you mentioned it was difficult to find any. Overall, the new information gives the reader a much better idea of what catastrophic schizophrenia is all about. Wmiguel08 (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catastrophic schizophrenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725234409/http://www.dialogues-cns.org/brochures/11/nn4/DCNS%2011_47.asp to http://www.dialogues-cns.org/brochures/11/nn4/DCNS%2011_47.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)