Jump to content

Talk:Causes of schizophrenia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

I am going to take on this article. Already I've merged sections and organized the neuroimaging. Please note that while many of my references seem like primary they are in fact review articles and have been deemed secondary sources by the WP:RS/N folks. For now I am going to focus on the neuroimaging. Basket of Puppies 17:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

How are these reviews? I have removed them at least a couple times per [1]...

^ Jernigan TL, Zatz LM, Moses JA, Berger PA. Computed tomography in schizophrenics and normal volunteers. I. Fluid volume. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 1982;39(7):765–70. PMID 7165476. ^ Holinger DP, Faux SF, Shenton ME, et al.. Reversed temporal region asymmetries of P300 topography in left- and right-handed schizophrenic subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1992;84(6):532–7. PMID 1280199.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at both sources, and looked quickly at the linked FA discussion. I am confident in saying that both sources are primary research studies, not reviews. They are reliable sources as primary sources, but they are not reviews. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
They are nearly 10 and 20 years old. Involve small number of people. They in no way meet WP:MEDMOS which we follow as this is a medical article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, the Causes article from which much of this new page was moved was already full of badly written content that relied overly on primary sources, far below anything applicable to FA. I have been meaning to clean it up for an embarrassingly long time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree completely and adding more will not improve things :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Typtofish, we all agree, but again, adding more of same, and BoP's edit warring is not the way to fix the obvious issues at Schizophrenia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The primary article to should be used for MRI findings should be A review of MRI findings in schizophrenia which is a review article, thus a secondary source. I asked about this sort of article on WP:RS/N and this is what they indicated. Regarding primary sources (published, peer-reviewed medical journal articles and the like) they can surely be used in an article that is not a FA, but should be replaced if/when this article goes for FA status. Basket of Puppies 19:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you're misreading or misunderstanding the responses at RS/N, and no, WP:MEDRS does not apply only to FAs. BoP, we need a specific answer to why you want to include old primary research; please give one, or I will remove the info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

SG, I ask at RS/N if a published review article is considered a secondary source. They said yes. Are you saying no? Regarding the primary source, please have a read of Wikipedia:MEDRS#Definitions says, "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used". Please be aware that this article is in progress and I fully plan to use the neurology textbooks as soon as I humanly can. Basket of Puppies 19:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of sources is always a matter of consensus; could you please answer the specific question? Why do you want to use those particular primary sources, and how do you justify them per WP:MEDRS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Reliability is always a matter of consensus? No. If a consensus of people says that "Joe's Awesome #1 News Site" that reports aliens caused 9/11 that would not be correct. Articles published in peer-reviewed science journals are reliable unless that particular journal is known to be unreliable. I already responded to your question about the use of primary sources- I am at the moment tracking down the secondary sources in the textbooks. This takes time. Your ultimatums are unhelpful. Please stop. Basket of Puppies 19:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I refer you to WP:RS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." We use the highest quality sources, that is determined by consensus and depending on context, and you haven't explained yet why you want to use primary sources in this particular instance when we have multiple, recent secondary reviews. If you are intending to say that secondary reviews report on those primary sources, please just say that, and we can move on while we wait for you to locate those review sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
SG, like I said, this is an effort in progress. I am putting the primary sources there because a) they are very reliable, b) just until I find the same in textbooks, c) so that there aren't any unreferenced statements. Ok? Basket of Puppies 19:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "A review of MRI findings in schizophrenia" other than being a little old (10 years) I do not have a problem with it. It would be better to use a newer one though if you could find it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Working on it. I promise. Basket of Puppies 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem for now, but please be aware that old textbooks will not trump newer secondary reviews. I'm going to unwatch here, but please don't place primary-source-referenced text in the main FA at schizophrenia when we are working hard to salvage its featured status; there are plenty of recent, secondary reviews that are higher quality and should be used there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
(I had an edit conflict with Sandy before saving this, and I'm glad to see what Sandy just said in this regard.) As a general observation, not directed at any single editor, I'm not sure what all the urgency surrounding this page is about. I know that Schizophrenia is under FA review, but I don't think that this page is. I mentioned above that I'm a bit embarrassed over not having done more to fix Causes of schizophrenia, and I am, but I don't think the sky has fallen in the mean time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
SG, 1. Ok? Basket of Puppies 20:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliability

I've asked about the reliability of at least two articles. FYI. Basket of Puppies 01:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

  • Adams & Victor quote for CT scans:

    The advent of CT and subsequently of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain provided a new stimulus to the anatomic study of schizophrenia. Johnstone and coworkers were the first to describe ventricular enlargement and sulcal widening in 18 patients and correlate these findings with dulling of intellect and affect. In a study of 58 chronic schizophrenics under the age of 50 years, Weinberger and colleagues found enlargement of the lateral ventricles in 40 percent. In 9 of 11 CT studies, the third ventricle was found to be enlarged, and in 14 of 17 studies, the sulci were widened. In 15 pairs of monozygotic twins, one of whom had schizophrenia, the anterior hippocampi were found to be smaller and the lateral and third ventricles larger in the affected twin (Sud- dath et al). Shenton and colleagues demonstrated a reduction in the volume of gray matter in the posterior part of the left superior temporal gyrus, which includes Heschl’s gyri and the planum tem- porale. The degree of volumetric reduction correlated roughly with the severity of the thought disorder. A reduction in volume of the superior temporal gyrus has also been associated with the occur- rence of auditory hallucinations (Barta et al).

    Basket of Puppies 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Jernigan is confirmed by Adams and Victor. Jernigan says there are sulcal widenings, which is exactly what Adams and Victor says. Also note that Adams and Victor quote Shenton by name. Basket of Puppies 21:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If they cite Shenton, why are you citing Jernigan, which they don't cite? The reason we use secondary reviews is that they report on the specific primary sources-- we don't just go out and pick an unreviewed primary source, parts of which may happen to contain similar findings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Jernigan's results are confirmed in Adams and Victor. I don't understand or see the problem. They may not be listed by name but the results are the same. Shenton primarily uses sMRI and DT-MRI on sz brains, not CT. I was merely saying that Shenton is listed by name, indicating the high quality of her research. Basket of Puppies 21:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • So, again, why aren't you using Shenton? I'm concerned that you still aren't understanding why Wiki requires secondary reviews for medical articles, and hope that Colin's post helped make it clear. We don't report on unreviewed primary sources, because secondary reviews analyze them critically; if they aren't reported on, there may be problems in those sources. You should be reporting on the sources analyzed by secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
  • Shenton *is* being used. Ref number 18. I plan to expand Shenton as well in other parts of the article, but Adams and Victor is more recent than Shenton, something you said is important. Since A&V use Shenton and report on her findings then it doesn't really matter which one I use. Right? Shenton is not a primary source but a secondary source, as it Adams and Victor. Still not sure why you are talking about primary sources. We are beyond that. Basket of Puppies 22:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am talking about primary sources because the unreviewed by secondary sources Jernigan 1982 article is still cited. Why are you citing Jernigan and not Shenton? Jernigan was apparently not worthy of mention by your secondary source, presumably for a reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not presume to know why Jernigan wasn't cited in the 2005 edition of Adams and Victors. Shenton says the following about CT:

    Research interest thus waned and did not ̄ourish again until 1976, following the pivotal computerassisted tomography (CT) ®nding of lateral ventricular enlargement in schizophrenia by Johnstone and colleagues.

    ,

    Research investigating brain abnormalities in schizophrenia thus came to a near standstill and was not rekindled until the first computer assisted tomography (CT)study o fschizophrenia (Johnstoneetal.,1976), which confirmed earlier pneumonencephalography findings of enlarged lateral ventricles (e.g. Haug, 1962;JacobiandWinkler,1928).

So, I will use Shenton. Basket of Puppies 22:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  • EEG quote page 1324 of Adams and Victor's:

    Detailed neuropsychologic testing has disclosed deficits in at- tention and abnormalities of the P300 waves (cortical “event- related” potentials). These deficits correlate with reduced cognitive activation activity in functional MRI.

    Basket of Puppies 21:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This isn't what is stated in our article?
However, this is progress; locating secondary sources was a better use of everyone's time. I'll leave the fixing and adjusting of wording to others, pending answers to my two questions above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is progress. Both primary and secondary sources are being used. I have the entire Adams and Victor's 8th editing on PDF and will be using it as a reference for the neurological section. I don't see your two questions- please restate. Basket of Puppies 21:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I have bolded them for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey folks, somebody please smack me with a Trypto-trout! I should have picked up on this before. The first of the two quotes is coming from a literature that I used to follow quite closely, and there are numerous studies finding those kinds of ventricular enlargements. I am sure that if you do a PubMed search, there will be multiple confirmatory primary studies (the quote above refers to some), and—yes!—mentions in reviews. The main caveats have been (1) that not all patients show these signs, and (2) some effects may reflect medication, rather than disease; I'm sure you'll find sourcing for both of those points. The second source may be, I think, more of a one-off as to its specifics, but there is certainly a literature about neurological measures reflecting deficits. There, it may be more a matter of using more sources so as not to become WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't you need to be smacked; seeing text helps ... which is why the *first* order of business should have been to find secondary sources. But my two questions remain, and I'm not sure our article currently says what these quotes say, or where Jernigan 1982 comes into the picture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

MRI studies p1324 Adams & Victor:

Other MRI studies have shown a volumetric change in the gray matter of the left hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, and amygdala (in right- handed patients). Equally compelling is the finding that young in- dividuals having two or more relatives with the disease, and there- fore being at risk for developing schizophrenia, have certain volumetric brain changes detected by imaging studies (Lawrie et al). In unaffected relatives, the left hippocampal-amygdaloid region was smaller than in healthy people but slightly larger than in af- fected relatives. In an attempt to organize the neuroradiologic findings, Murray and coworkers have raised the possibility that there are two types of this disease—one with ventricular enlargement and a negative family history and the other with normal ventricles and a positive family history. In the first group of sporadic, “acquired” schizo- phrenia, environmental factors, such as birth injury and EEG ab- normalities (see later) were thought to be more frequent. In sum- marizing the many cerebral changes observed in schizophrenic patients, Harrison concluded that several are quite consistent. These include mild enlargement of the lateral and third ventricles; de- creased cortical volume, perhaps disproportionate in the temporal lobe; and—microscopically—diminution in size of cortical and hippocampal neurons; a diminished number of neurons in the dor- sal thalamus; and a notable absence of gliosis.

Note the wording above, that appears to be part of the confusion that continues here:
  • ... Murray and coworkers have raised the possibility that there are two types of this disease—one with ventricular enlargement and a negative family history and the other with normal ventricles and a positive family history.
It is still classified as a mental disorder, AFAIK. We can't treat a hypothesis as fact in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

PET changes:

ttention has also been drawn to the regional alterations of cerebral blood flow in chronic stable schizophrenic patients, as re- vealed by positron emission tomography (PET) and functional MRI. Weinberger and colleagues and Liddle and Barnes have re- ported a decrease in blood flow in the prefrontal areas during cog- nitive performances. Friston and associates found consistent ab- normalities in the left parahippocampal region in all forms of chronic schizophrenia. Studies of regional glucose metabolism and postmortem norepinephrine measurements have yielded equivocal data, although most patients show a reduction in glucose metabo- lism in the thalamus and frontal cortex. Several lines of investi- gation point to the medial part of the left temporal lobe and related limbic and frontal systems as being the focus of a developmental abnormality (see Tsuang et al and Friston et al for pertinent refer- ences). According to Sabri et al, the inconsistent findings on functional imaging may be accounted for by correlations between cer- tain blood flow patterns and specific symptoms. For example, the formal thought disorder corresponded to increased flow in the fron- tal and temporal regions, while delusions and hallucinations were associated with reduced flow in the cingulate, left frontal, and tem- poral areas. Silbersweig et al have performed PET studies in schiz- ophrenic patients while they were experiencing auditory halluci- nations and found increased blood flow mainly in both thalami, left hippocampus, and right striatum, but also in the parahippocampal, orbitofrontal, and cingulate areas. One of their drug-naive patients with visual and auditory hallucinations showed activation in these regions.

Basket of Puppies 21:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Neural, neurological and neurodevelopmental

In spite of progress above, and a long explanatory post by Colin at the OR noticeboard that should have helped explain the problems in how this article is being developed,[2] we're back to the same problem that has been present for almost a week.[3] Documentation of neural differences does not make schizophrenia a neurodevelopmental disorder (at least until we have firm secondary reviews that call it that).[4] Documented neural differences don't establish causation. That schizophrenia is neurodevelopmental is still a hypothesis as far as I know, so we don't state it as fact, much less in the lead of an article. Do you have a recent reliable secondary review that establishes it as a neurodevelopmental disorder?

And we still have the incorrect change from neural to neurological back at schizophrenia; perhaps this will help?

  • Neurology–noun: the science of the nerves and the nervous system, esp. of the diseases affecting them.
  • Neural-–adjective: of or pertaining to a nerve or the nervous system.

Correlation is not causation: the documentation of neural deficits or differences does not establish causation. The more correct heading appears to be neural, as it was originally, and that confusion persists in the development of this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Shenton writes:

The most parsimonious explanation is that some brain abnormalities are neurodevelopmental in origin but unfold later in development, thus setting the stage for the development of the symptoms of schizophrenia. Or there may be additional factors, such as stress or neurotoxicity, that occur during adolescence or early adulthood and are necessary for the development of schizophrenia, and may be associated with neurodegenerative changes

and

There is also evidence from both post- mortem and MRI ®ndings to suggest that at least some of these brain abnormalities may originate from neurodevelopmental anomalies )e.g. Akbarian etal.,1993a,b;Benes,1989;HeymanandMurray,

1992; Jakob and Beckmann, 1986, 1989; Kikinis etal.,1994;MurrayandLewis,1987:seealsoreviews inMcCarleyetal.,1999b;Shentonetal.,1992,1997, 2001;Weinberger,1986,1987,1996). and

thus lending more credence to the theory that schizophrenia has a neurodevelopmental etiology.

and

These findings suggest that, at least among some patients with schizophrenia, a neurodevelopmental factor may play a critical role in the etiology of theillness.

and

In summary, MRI findings of CSP are among the most robust in the literature and suggest that this neurodevelopmental anomaly is relevant to the neuropathology of schizophrenia for at least a subgroup of individuals diagnosed with this disorder.

and

The general assumption is that changes over time are indicative of neurodegeneration, although such changes might also re ̄ect neurodevelopmental anomalies.

and

These prefrontal and orbitofrontal asymmetry findings also favor a neurodevelopmental origin as the sulco-gyral patterns are established in utero.

and

Feinberg (1982) proposes that neurodevelopmental abnormalities in schizophrenia result from errors in synaptic pruning that occur at the onset of this disorder, during adolescence and early adulthood.

and

Weinberger and coworkers (1992; Weinberger, 1987, 1995) describe schizophrenia as a neurodevelopmental encephalopathy

and

A focus on shape deformations of brain regions, as opposed to only volume measures, may also provide important information relevant to neurodevelopmental theories of schizophrenia, because such deforma- tions may be associated with neurodevelopmental abnormalities.

Multiple sources (as cited in Shenton) state that SZ is neurodevelopmental/neurodegenerative. Is this sufficient? Basket of Puppies 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Others may want to clarify or better inform both of us, but no, it doesn't-- all of those are tentative statements, or related to a hypothesis. Do you have a source that says that schizophrenia is classified by anyone as a neurodevelopmental disorder, as compared to describing hypotheses or supportive evidence indicating that it may be? Look carefully at all of the language above, and you may see the problem. Your final sentence, using the wording "is neurodevelopmental", isn't supported by the suggestions, hypotheses, or proposals, AFAICT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
SG, did you miss this one?

Weinberger and coworkers (1992; Weinberger, 1987, 1995) describe schizophrenia as a neurodevelopmental encephalopathy

This very clearly describes SZ as a neurodevelopmental disorder. It's in Shenton's review article. Basket of Puppies 23:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
No, but pending further feedback, that may just be cherrypicking-- as far as I know, it's still a hypothesis (I could be wrong). A good place to look for the best info on this would be the most recent, broad reviews published by highly reputable journals; I don't have the full text, but I suggest checking van Os J, PMID 19700006 and Picchioni MM, PMID 17626963. Do they classify it as neurodevelopmental and what do they have to say on the topic? Remember, WP:DUE is also an issue, which is why we use the highest quality sources, and give due weight to a preponderance of sources, to avoid cherry picking sources supportive of one position. I'm sorry I can't check those sources for you, but if you're working on this article, you should have the full text of them anyway, to guide your work. Further, you seem to be misinterpreting Shenton, based on your post above-- she seems to be saying that someone else describes it as neurodevelopmental, which is quite different from saying that there is consensus that it *is* neurodevelopmental-- even when using reviews, you need to know how to use them carefully and correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I've cited a major secondary review article that repeatedly says SZ is a neurodevelopmental/neurodegenerative disorder. Not every article is going to say this but it is clear that the ones that do say it are making their way into the review articles. As you said there is a reason why they were selected to be included in the review article. Now, can we agree on this matter? Basket of Puppies 23:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
But you still need to learn how to use sources, even review sources, to avoid drawing your own (original research) conclusions. Do you see the difference between saying somewhere in the body of the article something like "Shenton et al. (year) state that several researchers believe that SZ is a neurodevelopmental disorder" and stating in the lead as fact that it is? If you don't, you need to read reviews with a better critical understanding of their purpose, conclusions, and their discussion sections. Further, your argument that not every review says that doesn't hold water: remember WP:DUE and selective use of sources to promote a POV. Again, rather than repeat a time-consuming pattern, have you checked the two sources I listed above, for example? What do they say? We can't give undue weight to a hypothesis by stating it as fact in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I am drawing no conclusions of my own. Ever. I only ever report what the articles say. Shenton's article clearly cites SZ to be a neurodevelopmental disorder. Do you agree? Basket of Puppies 23:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are again engaging in OR, using one source to promote a POV, unless and until you answer the question about what other sources say. This is frustrating and tiresome; I had hoped that Colin's explanation at the OR noticeboard would have helped you see how to better edit medical articles. Please address my specific questions above-- perhaps you don't read critically when you are trying to work too fast? Do you understand the issue of due weight, and not stating one editor's hypothesis as fact in the lead, versus exploring that hypothesis in the body of the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I grow tired of this. SG, which part of the quotes above is ambiguous or difficult to understand? You say it's OR. How? In what way? I have only faithfully reported what the peer-reviewed secondary source says. Nothing more. Please reply only with specifics, not generalizations. If you feel so strongly then file for a third opinion. Ok? Basket of Puppies 23:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I have filed for a 3O. Basket of Puppies 23:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you're more likely headed for an WP:RFC/U. Although at least half a dozen editors have disagreed with you so far (and no one has supported your position, see Talk:Schizophrenia where this started a week ago), and this is still clearly under discussion, and you continue to fail to engage talk page queries, you have now also removed a well-justified maintenance tag while alleging edit warrring. This is becoming more and more tenditious and disruptive, as you have been told by several others on the various noticeboards. It took five days, and a lot of editor time, for you to realize what you were told from the beginning about MEDRS and secondary sources; please learn from that experience. I have clearly laid out several questions above, and explained the due weight issue, and you have not yet answered my question, after more than three queries. Do you read what is posted to you? Considering that a good portion of this dispute has been conducted by you off-Wiki and on IRC, 3O is not likely to resolve this, and an RFC/U on your editing behavior might be more helpful. I would be greatly encouraged if you would simply read the posts above, read the policy pages as was advised to you at the OR noticeboard, and then answer my direct questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
SG, you have tried every which way to get me to conform to your method of editing. You've accused me of everything under the sun from 3rr, TEND, disruptive editing, forum shopping, insulting other editors and OR. I think it's time to stop the insults and work together. I've filed for a 3O. Why don't you let it happen before jumping to an RFC/U. Or do you have something against the dispute resolution process? Basket of Puppies 23:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing the article; the place to discuss your behavior is here, and you've been told repeatedly that discussing with other editors is the first step in dispute resolution, yet remove all attempts at discussion. If you'd like to reinstate that post and discuss on your talk, we can do so; otherwise, it looks like an RFC/U is the next step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • From Adams and Victor p 1322:

    One widely held contemporary hypothesis is that this disease reflects an underlying developmental disorder, determined either genetically or because of an environmental insult, leading to abnormalities of synaptic connectivity, prominently affecting the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex.

    SZ is widely held to be neurodevelopmental according to this text. Basket of Puppies 00:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for proving my point: "One widely held contemporary hypothesis is that this disease reflects an underlying developmental disorder, ... " and notice that you have rephrased that as fact in the lead, misrepresenting the source, Shenton. This is exactly what I've said above, and to which you have yet to respond. We don't state a hypothesis as fact in the lead; we explore the hypothesis, including both sides of the issue, in the body of the article. The article is now POV, as it presents one side of a debate as fact. Since you have now edit warred away the dubious fact tag, I won't bother placing the POV tag, but one is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Not a review article. BoP, please answer the direct questions above as to what the other sources say. Since you're working on this article and advancing a specific POV, I assume you have the full text of the other sources, which I do not. Do you know what a medical hypothesis is? Do you understand why we don't state hypotheses as fact? Are you aware of the concept of cherry picking of sources? Do you understand that we need to know what the most recent highly reputable sources say, and give them due weight? Do you understand that this paper, too, is advancing a hypothesis, and that we have to give due weight to all reliable sources rather than representing only one argument as fact, per WP:NPOV? If you don't simply answer these questions, or engage on user talk as I've tried multiple times, I see no option but to proceed with an RFC/U. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Further, this article also includes an entire section and an abundance of text critical of and explaining the problems with the hypothesis, concluding that more study is needed. Hypothesis, not fact. We need to reflect mainstream viewpoints, not just hypotheses, and not state hypotheses as fact. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Vol. 25: 409-432 (Volume publication date March 2002) Basket of Puppies 00:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Further evidence of my point: "In addition, the pathogenesis of the disease is hypothesized to be neurodevelopmental in nature based on reports of an excess of adverse events during the pre- and perinatal periods, ... " (Also very old, 2002-- we have current highly reputable reviews, yet you don't seem to want to state what they say.) For NPOV, we have to accord due weight to other views, and not state this as fact in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Hypothesis, not fact. Further, this paper contains an entire section devoted to citicism of the hypothesis, including but not limited to:

Critics of the neurodevelopmental model claim that it does not fully account for a number of features of schizophrenia, including the long gap between neurodevelopmental insult and the development of symptoms, the progressive clinical deterioration observed in some patients, and evidence of progressive changes in certain ventricular and cortical brain structures.1,207–209 Longitudinal studies have demonstrated evidence of an increase in ventricular volume over a period of 2–4 years among first-episode patients.143,210 Moreover, a decline in frontal lobe volume and posterior superior temporal gray matter volume over a period of 4 years has been reported in patients with chronic schizophrenia.211

Unless we give due to weight to all theories, including those most prevalent, the article is POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Correlation is not causation: " ... syndrome marked by neurodevelopmental abnormalities". All of this is proving my point, and you still haven't indicated what van Os and Picchione say. I'll unwatch for a while, and tag the article POV tomorrow unless you include other mainstream sources as indicated or correct the text as suggested above; this is not a productive use of editor time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • And, "Finally, the field seems to be witnessing a revival of theoretical speculation, with several new syntheses of existing literature pointing to new hypotheses about pathophysiology in a neurodevelopmental context." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's a quote from Brain and Behavior p219 (ISBN #:0716711877),

    Abnormal brain development can be much subtler than anencephaly. For example, if cells do not migrate to their correct location and these mispositioned cells do not subsequently die, they can disrupt brain function and may lead to disorders ranging from seizures to schizophreniaemphasis mine

    Yet another secondary source that declares SZ to be as a result of abnormal brain development. Basket of Puppies 01:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Here is another quote from a textbook Biological Psychology, 10th ed ISBN#0-495-60300-7 p453:

    schizophrenia is based on abnormalities in the prenatal (before birth) or neonatal (newborn) development of the nervous system, which lead to a subtle abnormalities of brain anatomy and major abnormalities in behavior (Weinberger, 1996).

    Yet another secondary text that indicates that SZ is neurodevelopmental/neurodegenerative. Basket of Puppies 02:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

POV

The article is currently POV, stating as fact in the lead the hypothesis that schizophrenia is neurodevelopmental. Contrasted to all of the hypotheticals listed above, here is the most recent high quality, secondary review article (Picchione, 2007, BMJ)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1914490/

which nowhere states that schizophrenia is neurodevelopmental, and clearly labels it as a mental illness, as it is currently classified. Wiki can explore hypotheses in the body of the article, but not state them as fact in the lead. I will check in tomorrow or the next day to see if the article should be tagged POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  • BoP, please READ and stop wasting time. We don't tout hypotheses in the lead of an article, while leaving out mainstream thinking, and we don't "compromise" the integrity of medical articles with misstatements and POV. Mainstream thought is not reflected in this article, it gives undue weight to fringe theories and hypotheses, and it is POV. Schizophrenia is currently viewed as a mental disorder, with genetic and environmental contributing factors. You might start by moving all of this neural stuff to the bottom of the article, placing the mainstream stuff first, and expanding it in the lead so as not to give undue weight to hypotheses (I appreciate that you made the effort to at least work mental disorder back into the lead, but we don't "compromise" if that means we're still not getting it right, according to Wiki's policies on sourcing, due weight, and NPOV). The lead at Causes of schizophrenia might give you some ideas of how to proceed to write a more neutral lead (and article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
How is it a "misstatement and POV" to indicate that SZ is a neurodevelopmental/neurodegenerative disease? The refs say just that over and over. Also, please don't shout. Ok? Basket of Puppies 01:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I've outlined that very well above, and I'm tired of repeating myself while you answer no questions. You might also consider the proper use of the word "neural" as at Causes of schizophrenia: "Neural correlates do not provide sufficiently useful criteria", which is the missing point in this POV article. Have you read WP:UNDUE? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
SG, at this point I think we are not talking to each other but rather past each other. Let's wait for the third opinion, ok? Basket of Puppies 01:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor

Hi; I just dropped by in response to your post on WP:3O. I'll break this long boring comment down into bullet points. Thanks for remaining civil - do please try not to snipe at each other, that'll just make things worse. (You can snipe at me, if that helps relieve your tension :-)

  • I thought that neurodevelopmental problems would be a subset of mental illnesses in this context. If this is the case (please correct me if I'm wrong!), by keeping that subset in mind it might be possible to sidestep a couple of points of disagreement. Specifically, considering the thread above, I don't think that citing one source which uses the specific (and controversial) term necessarily contradicts another which uses the more general term, so we could find a way to sidestep some arguments about which-source-overrules-which.
  • If research is still ongoing into the mechanisms of schizophrenia, I don't think it's unreasonable to mention current theories in the lede (and I can't think of a specific policy against it), as long as it's phrased carefully, and it's in line with the usual concerns about due weight &c (and, of course, compatible with reliable sources). Consider the Higgs boson; physicists don't yet have a definite agreement on the subject, but rather than stripping content out of the lede to avoid mentioning hypotheses, that article's lede summarises the current stance of researchers on the Higgs boson, and briefly alludes to other possibilities.
  • I don't see how BoP's recent compromise diff "leaves out mainstream thinking" - could somebody explain? It's possible that I've misread sources on the first reading. However, I do think the wording of that diff is a little stilted. Bearing in mind that the lede should be an accurate and representative summary, would you consider a compromise along these lines?
"The mechanisms of schizophrenia are varied, and some research is ongoing. Schizophrenia is a mental illness (or some similar concrete definition). Current research suggests (a few words summarising the main thrust of research)"
  • On primary sources: I feel that a rigid black-and-white distinction would be unhelpful. In line with WP:MEDRS, it should be OK to build a broad framework out of secondary sources and then maybe use primary sources to fill in a couple of details which are gaps in the framework (as long as we exercise due caution; the primary source doesn't contradict the secondary, &c). More generally, the reliability of sources isn't boolean either, so if we're starting from a fairly high level - our sources are peer-reviewed medical research rather than blogposts or pamphlets - it may be necessary to weigh each source in context rather than apply rigid top-down rules in advance.

Comments / suggestions / complaints? bobrayner (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, if you have difficulty getting access to the full text of a particular paper, just say so - I have a subscription to most interesting journals & archives. bobrayner (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Bobrayner, I am extremely impressed that you a) summoned up the courage to offer your neutral opinion and b) have such an impressive grasp on the situation. Bravo. I agree with you on about every point. One point that I'll be interested in your reply- I view mental illness as a subset of neurological basis. In the case of SZ, an improper neurodevelopment leads to what we call mental illness, not the other way around. Such as in the case of PTSD, the traumatic events cause degeneration of the amygdale and hippocampus which then leads to symptoms that we call mental illness. I have degrees in psychology (BS) and neurobiology (MS) so I think I've gotten a broad range of education in both fields and in the end I firmly see the neurodevelopmental/neurodegenerative issues being the parent issue of mental illness. That being said, if you think that my compromise text is actually a good compromise (but needs a bit of tweaking) then I would invite this to go forth. I do not see how it leaves out mainstream thinking in the least. In fact I've cited no less than half a dozen secondary sources (and several more primary sources) that indicate SZ is neurodevelopmental/neurodegenerative and firmly think this *is* the mainstream thinking. Realizing that not every paper agrees with me I am very open to this compromise (with additional tweaking) that would satisfy all the sources and all opinions on the issue. Again, thank you so much for coming and offering your neutral and unbiased third opinion. Sincerely, Basket of Puppies 06:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been involved, and I too want to thank Bob for his thoughtful and sensible help. In the time since I logged out yesterday, the talk here between BoP and Sandy has been, for me, tl;dr. But I'd suggest to you both to just drop the stick and walk away, instead of escalating this. We can always come back and make more edits later.

It seems to me that much of the heat here has been about editing protocol, rather than about the actual merits of the content, and it may be helpful to recognize that there's a difference. As a matter of fact: it's not true, per the reliable sources, to say that neurodevelopmental models of SZ are just hypotheses. It's the scientific consensus that some kind of neurodevelopmental model is going to be correct. There's still a lack of answers about how much is strictly developmental and how much is some other kind of neural mechanism, and a lack of answers as to which mechanisms are the real ones, but non-organic ideas (like moral failure or bad mothering) have long ago been relegated by mainstream science to the realm of discredited fringe theories. I'm not an RS of course, but I promise you that you'll find review sources to back that up. So chill. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish, in an attempt to compromise with SG I changed the lede to reflect SZ as a mental illness with leading hypothesis of neurodevelopmental/neurodegenerative process. This seems to accurately reflect the studies and also SGs position. So I am unsure why there is still a conflict. Basket of Puppies 18:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure myself, and I was telling all involved to chill, not singling out either one of you. I want to make it clear that you are, in fact, correct in describing it as neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative, and it's just a matter of working collaboratively to develop the sourcing. The suggestion that developmental/degenerative is controversial is not supported by the literature. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the sourcing issue has largely been worked out since I found two secondary sources that go into some depth of SZ. SG still has a problem with the use of any primary source at all, something that isn't supported by policy, but I am diligently working around that. Still unsure what I am doing wrong (if anything), tho SG claims I am POV and FRINGE in how I am presenting this article. Can you help explain it to me? She make the claims but doesn't give specifics. Basket of Puppies 18:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
For obvious reasons, I'm not going to put myself in the position of trying to explain what someone else is saying, but it seems to me that you are now doing the right things, and whatever is still not agreed upon will be worked out in time. It kind of looks to me like editors understandably got pissed off over some of the earlier disagreements at FA, and it's taking a little while to let go of that. For now, I'd say follow what bobrayner suggested above (including the use of primary sources, per his fourth bullet point), and that should be fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Basket of Puppies 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, we can't reach an agreement whilst one person is quiet. SandyGeorgia, how do you feel? What do you think would be the best way forward? And is there anything we can do to bring you back to the bargaining table? :-)
BoP: You might not like me saying this, but if there's entrenched disagreement, it's unhelpful to talk in terms of "The other person is blocking progress...". That can provoke more defensive responses, then you'd react defensively, and we'd keep going round in circles. Given what SG has said already, can you think of any other options to put on the table? bobrayner (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Having looked at Sandy's talk (I have way too much free time today!), I think she just needs to recover from her leaking roof and get a good night's sleep. Bob, you've been immensely helpful here, so big thanks to you. I think things are heading in the right direction now (famous last words). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, still catching up, and will be dealing with roof issue for a few more days. There is some feedback on my talk, if that will help advance things in the interim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

New lead, more to do

I have attempted to somewhat neutralize the lead (with direct quotes, that someone may want to better paraphrase, my prose stinks) to avoid POV, but content needs to be added to the body of the article, discussing problems with the neurodevelopmental hypothesis, and where needed, updating info to newer (than 2001) reviews. That's all I have time for today. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the way that this lede reads. It is balanced and takes into account all the opinions. I have a few questions regarding the sourcing for it, however. I see that The Neurodevelopmental Hypothesis of Schizophrenia, Revisited is being used, but I read it and it doesn't appear to be a secondary source. Am I missing something? Basket of Puppies 23:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This dispatch (written incidentally by two of Wiki's finest biomed editors) may help you better understand sourcing and citation formatting in biomedical articles. First, if you will use the convention that is used on most medical articles when discussing citations, it will be time-saving and easier for all. You are referring to PMID 19223657 . When you want to refer to a PubMed indexed article on user talk, you only need enter PMID followed by a space and the PMID number-- then we can all get directly to the abstract. Second, at the PubMed abstract, near the bottom of the page, you will find a drop-down that says "Publication types"; there, you will see it's a review. The Dispatch gives you techniques for locating recent reviews at PubMed. Third, this is the Diberri template filler: you only need plug in a PMID, and it returns a cite journal template. Fourth, Eubulides wrote the vcite template, that uses a slightly different format and is helpful on long articles, as it takes less code (for reasons I can't explain), so after you get the cite journal template from Diberri, you only need switch cite to vcite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Huh? I just am wondering if I am mistaken about the article being primary or secondary. Basket of Puppies 00:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Neurological

Fact: Everyone agrees that schizophrenia is associated with structural abnormalities. What the connection between these abnormalities and thinking the world is out to get you however is debated (dopamine is believed to be involved somewhere). What causes these sturctural abnormailities is also debated but most likely is muitifactorial.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with that. And another fact is that neither of us is a reliable source (which you know, and I don't mean that you were implying otherwise), so whoever wants to, go and find the sources that reflect that! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
These are the conclusions of the Lancet09 review. Uptodate states:

PATHOPHYSIOLOGY — The biological basis of schizophrenia involves a combination of genetic and environmental factors, both of which are required for development of the disorder [96,97]. The wide range of symptoms and subtypes of the illness suggest the possibility of multiple pathways for its development. Eugen Bleuler, who coined the term schizophrenia, was probably close to the mark when he titled his 1911 monograph on psychosis 'Dementia Praecox, or The Group of Schizophrenias' [98].The prevailing model for the pathogenesis of schizophrenia includes a combination of genetic vulnerability, early developmental insults, and later biological and psychosocial stressors as essential factors. The numerous variants of these factors may be responsible for both the heterogeneity of the illness and the lack of consensus in studies of risk factors. It concludes "Genetic and environmental risk factors contribute to the development of schizophrenia. Altered neurotransmitter pathways, including dopamine, are implicated, and enlarged sulci and ventricles are found on brain imaging."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

More reviews

This article currently heavily cites Shenton, which is 2001 (much too old for such a widely studied condition). Here are other recent reviews for consideration:

  1. Fatemi SH, Folsom TD. The neurodevelopmental hypothesis of schizophrenia, revisited. Schizophr Bull. 2009;35(3):528–48. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbn187. PMID 19223657.
  1. Discusses the hypothesis, 2009, full text freely available (valuable for our readers) and has an entire section devoted to problems with the hypothesis.
  2. Wood SJ, Pantelis C, Yung AR, Velakoulis D, McGorry PD. Brain changes during the onset of schizophrenia: implications for neurodevelopmental theories. Med. J. Aust.. 2009;190(4 Suppl):S10–3. PMID 19220166.
    Review, 2009, " ... they challenge the conventional neurodevelopmental model of schizophrenia".
  3. Murray RM, Lappin J, Di Forti M. Schizophrenia: from developmental deviance to dopamine dysregulation. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2008;18 Suppl 3:S129–34. doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2008.04.002. PMID 18499406.
    Free text not available, but 2008 and abstract sounds interesting.

Also noting that free full text is available for Steen, which is currently cited in the article, but using the wrong citation format (citation style was altered in the article, against WP:CITE, not only producing inconsistent citations, but the {{pmid}} template does not provide for full-text when it's available. Please restore the citations to here to the vcite fformat for consistency, and use the Diberri format filler to yield free full text when it's available (or manually supply the URL if Diberri doesn't return it).

  1. Steen RG, Mull C, McClure R, Hamer RM, Lieberman JA. Brain volume in first-episode schizophrenia: systematic review and meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging studies. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;188:510–8. doi:10.1192/bjp.188.6.510. PMID 16738340.

This is just a sampling of newer reviews, and there are scores more, so we may need to use newer sources here. These reviews specific to the mechanisms may be useful for this article; however, broader-based, newer, and highest quality reviews such as Doc James linked above still do not call the condition neurodevelopmental, so the hypothesis should be explored fully in this daugher article from both sides. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding, in case it's still not clear, these are reviews specific to the topic of this article, not rising to the level of reviews needed in the main Schizophrenia article, as they don't cover the topic broadly, and are only looking at specific hypotheses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but how have you decided that a secondary source review article is not allowed to be used? I see you say it doesn't raise to a level, but how did you come to that and where is the consensus for it? Just seems confusing to me. Basket of Puppies 00:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring again

In the interests of moving on, I'm boldly collapsing this. Now let's work on improving the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This series of edits once again changed the citation style of the article, even after pages of discussion of this problem with BoP, against Wikipedia:CITE#Citation styles and consistency. This is how the article looked before BoP's first edit; it does not use the PMID template, it uses vcite with the Diberri format. Please revert. BoP, before reverting a change which has already been discussed, you should discuss it on talk, and gain consensus if you want to change the citation style. I am dismayed that you continue to edit war after our discussion; please see WP:BRD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? SG, why are you accusing me of edit warring so quickly? I was just making the lede refs to have the same format as the rest of the article. Basket of Puppies 23:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Frustration growing, that at this stage, you don't know what edit warring is. You have already been reverted on changing citation style, it has been explained to you, our talk page discussion led me to believe you understood, and yet you again changed citation style. Any time you revert changes against BRD, which have already been discussed and where you've reverted those before, you are edit warring. Three reverts are not required for edit warring (hence the admin who didn't block you for your edit warring on 27 December allowed you apparently to remain confused about what constitutes edit warring). We had talked about you changing citation style, yet you did it again, with no discussion. Do you not seee the differences in formatting between your style and the style used in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Whatever are you talking about, SG? I noticed an inconsistency in the refs so I fixed them. I really don't understand why you are accusing me on edit warring when I am just following the suggestion to keep references consistent. Basket of Puppies 00:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Then please try to reread; I have explained it all above as well as I'm able. Perhaps someone else can get you to understand. Edit warring is a bright line you should not cross, and whenever you are changing citation style, and reverting more than once, you are edit warring. You introduced the citation inconsistency; the style was consistent before you started. I'm unwatching again, I find this waste of time incredibly frustrating, and I hope someone else can help you understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
SG, I had a read of the policy page and it says

Citations in Wikipedia articles should be internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected.

When this article was created it used *both* vcite AND cite pmid. I took the time to standardize them to cite pmid and every ref is in that format. It appears that changing them to vcite would be breaking the guideline. I am not trying to edit war and only trying to keep things consistent. I hope you realize I am doing this entire in good faith and not trying to push any buttons or make anyone upset. Basket of Puppies 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems I can't log out for the night and then come back without finding more drama here. I've reviewed the edits, and I have to largely agree with BoP here. There is nothing resembling edit warring, and BoP appears entirely to be acting in good faith. As best I can tell, Sandy gave a useful but confusing explanation of citation styles in #New lead, more to do, above. BoP's "huh?" question at the end of that section is entirely reasonable, and I think it's a bit much to get out the pitchforks because BoP didn't follow what Sandy was saying, and made a good faith edit based on another part of the guidelines. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Tryptofish. I swear I am editing in good faith and not trying to make any drama. I appreciate your assessment of the situation and it's good to know I am not unintentionally messing things up. Basket of Puppies 16:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Various patronising comments such as "you don't know what edit warring is" are unhelpful too. Please, let's not provoke any more drama - that's not going to improve the article. bobrayner (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Bobrayner. I hope SG will be kind and not say those sort of things from now on. Basket of Puppies 18:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Good, I'm happy to hear this! I recognize that Sandy has had a few stressful days in real life, due to a leaking roof, so hopefully this is an understandable situation all around. And I would support formatting the references as Sandy has advised. But let me make it real clear here that the consensus is that BoP has come around from whatever was a matter of conflict before, and now, it's time to put that behind us. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then you all carry on here, and I'll focus on other dispute resolution when and if I have time. I placed a very clear link above, which shows as clearly as possible that there were no {{cite pmid}} templates in the article before BoP started altering the citation style, the citation style used in the article is the vcite template and has been since the article started, and from his other post above, it's now apparent that he perhaps until now, and even now, doesn't yet know how to determine what a primary source is and how to distinguish them from secondary sources, in spite of my lengthy efforts to help him understand and post helpful links to him. I suggest the best way forward now, and to avoid other editor's misspending their time and effort on this, is for BoP to seek a mentor who has time to help him understand these basic concepts of Wiki editing, and to encourage him to read pages and links posted to him. As long as this doesn't spill over into the main featured article, I don't have time to engage and am not finding this at all productive. AGF is fine and good, but someone else needs to help BoP understand these fundamentals, as it's very time consuming, and as long as they don't affect the integrity of the main article and its featured article review, I give up. I appreciate that BoP is trying to improve, and do AGF, but someone else needs to help in the fact that the issues continue, and amount to IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which the rest of you are now enabling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not enabling. I understand full well that AGF isn't the proverbial suicide pact, but I also point out that refusing to drop the stick is a kind of didn'thearthat too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said, as long as the continued misunderstanding of fundamentals of Wiki editing doesn't spill over into the main article, and affect its WP:FAR, the stick is dropped, primarily because I don't have time to continue to try to make long posts including links to help BoP understand these fundamentals. You are welcome to discuss BoP's behaviors with me on my talk if you still have concerns, and I will respond as I get some sleep. Inconsistent citations are a minor matter here, but they are part of WP:WIAFA and will affect the FAR if they are introduced at the main article, and primary sources in the main article will cause it to be defeatured, which is why it would be helpful if BoP would understand these concepts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Causes_of_schizophrenia/Archive_1&oldid=1159206196"