Talk:Schizophrenia

Risk factors: Substance use possibly unintentionally misleading

I make no claims to being an expert on the subject of cannabis or schizophrenia. However, I felt it bears pointing out that for decades the U.S. government made so many official false claims about the dire effects of marijuana in its efforts to conduct its global drug war that now people all over the world are understandably skeptical about any reports of marijuana's potentially negative effects. Considering the debilitating effect a diagnosis of schizophrenia is apt to have on a patient's life, if sufficient reliable evidence to list marijuana as a contributing factor exists, special care must be taken to differentiate it from Reagan-era "just say no" bullshit [REJSNB]; otherwise, readers who might otherwise be helped by the information will surely ignore it.

The whole last paragraph of the section reads as though it might be suspect. But most egregious is: "One of these strains is well known as skunk"—a statement with all the hallmarks of REJSNB. Skunk weed isn't a strain of marijuana in the sense that, say, C. sativa is. It simply refers to an old, pre-legalization belief that the potency of any garden-variety marijuana can be judged by how it smells. Weed that emits a sharp, skunk-like odor when burnt was thought to be particularly potent.

Any habitual smoker will take one look at that and burst out laughing. Granted, they're probably giggling already, but I suggest the entire sentence can be elided unless the point of including it is to make a dubious claim that brand-name strains of marijuana are psychologically healthier than skunk weed. It seems unlikely that any such baldfaced attempt at monetization is being made here. If it were, however, such an attempt might be improved by finding a brand-name weed distribution company to sponsor this page. --Saltcub (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the paragraph is badly sourced, and the reserch cited in the citations used for the claim abbout 'skunk' being the coulpritt actualy does not say the same as what is written on the Wikipedia page. The relevant source for the potency claim mentions the chemical Delta 9-THC. Whilst it does mention 'skunk' i do not realy see the relevance of pointing out a certain strain when the findings point to the chemical and not the strain itsself. As a side note reserch on the effects of mrijuana on mental helath is especialy complicated as it is a plant. Therefore different strains may contain differnt levels of chemichals, and different chemicals, making the singelinng out of a particualar strain problematic at best, and pottentialy untruthfull at worst. However the basic raserch behind the linking of canabissmoking and schizophrenia seems to be sound, however it should not be a masive cause for concern as in the overall picture the ellimination of consumtion would only resoult in a poppulation wide derease in the prevalence of schitzofrenia of 8 %, if there is a causal relationship between the two. EirikRS (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

References

The sourcing is sound, and neither the NHS nor the Royal College of Psychiatrists are “Reagan-esque era” sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

They may be good sources, but thhey do not give good suport for what is stated in the wikipedia article, especially the mention of the strain 'skunk'. In my opinon the paragraph would be improved by simply removing themention of skunk. This would also increase the emphasis on the importatnt risk factor (THC concentration) and away from the focus on a single strain (skunk). EirikRS (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

recent edit

Hi Bear420 I get what you're going for, but without a survey / poll of popular belief, maybe it's best to just cite the facts and not say 'contrary to popular belief'? Like the difference between saying "many disabled people have graduated from college" vs saying "contrary to common belief, many disabled people have graduated from college" - one puts the emphasis on facts about the actions of the people in question, the other shifts the emphasis to the biases or misconceptions of abled people. Thoughts? - ARMILLARIA.9 (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a clear case of editorialization.--Megaman en m (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that it's editorialization per se, and if Bear420 wants to share a source / survey of popular belief, I'd be ok with keeping some mention of it. - ARMILLARIA.9 (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think (but am not too sure) that even if it's true, the claim is synthetic to make without explicit linkage between public opinion and college graduation in the source. Urve (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Skunk

Incorrect usage of the word 'skunk' in the article:Italic text Hi, the use of the word skunk in the article is not factual and not backed up by the sources linked. As a Brit, I know exactly where this misconception has arisen. During the 2000s, the British government started calling any 'stronger' strains of cannabis,'skunk'. There is no strain actually just called 'skunk'. There is skunk no1' but no such strain as just skunk. Like i said, this was catch all phrase for the UK government for any stronger cannabis strains.

So basically the skunk sentence in article is wrong in two ways 1.the source provided does not back up the claim 2.No such strain exists and is a result of blanket phrasing by the British government/nhs. 3. The government/NHS was referring to any high thc content strain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Systema2000 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

See the discussion at (above on this page). The text in the article now reflects high quality sources. If you have better sources, please provide them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I severely question the quality of these sources in proving the use of the word skunk as factual. The Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence source has no use of the word skunk that i can find.

The 'High-potency cannabis and the risk of psychosis' source does use it, but its in brackets used as a colloquial term next to the word sensimilia. It makes no reference to a strain called skunk. Like i said before, its using the word as a blanket colloquial term, and the only reason they include it is due to their(uk gov, nhs, medical establishmenet etc) past errors in basically nicknaming all high strength weed as some special strain called skunk.

What specifically do i need to provide? Im questioning the validity of the sources used as they dont support what the article says. You want me to provide a source proving that those sources are wrong? Because thats going to be impossible because no one is going to bother to write a scientific article on how the uk government and the nhs/uk medical establishments use of the word skunk is wrong.

I dont feel i need to anyway, as the sources pretty much define it as i was saying, using it colloquially.

Heres a recent source that makes the effort to not directly call all high strength cannabis 'skunk', instead they refer to it as 'skunk-like'. https://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/14TLP0454_Di%20Forti.pdf

Hopefully this enforces my point more. They would not drop the term skunk like that without good reason. The reason is, skunk is just a colloquial term. Skunkno1 is just one particular mix of land race cannabis strains. In the years since skunkno1 was bred, breeders and seed companies have collected and bred together different combinations of land race cannabis strains, many of which are much higher potency than skunkno1.

So all the other high strength strains that dont derive from skunkno1 are being labelled as skunk, incorrectly. Even with the older strains Eg White widow,a cross between a Brazilian sativa landrace and a resin-heavy South Indian indica. It has no skunk genetics. Yet its 18% thc. High strength cannabis. Skunk no1 is a hybrid of Afghani, Acapulco Gold, and Colombian Gold.

Different genetics entirely. the two most popular strains the uk at the moment are amnesia haze and stardawg. Amnesia haze has no skunk no1 genetics at all. Chemdawg has a complicated origin but is also considered not to have skunk no1 genetics.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Systema2000 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC) 

Can you find a secondary source that addresses the same issue that is more specific about "skunk" versus "high potency strains of cannabis"? Is "better" than the current source? Wikipedia tries to do as little "interpretation" as possible so getting a better source that addresses the same issue is a good approach. Unfortunately well-reasoned arguments will tend to lose to "this source says such and such". The role of knowledge and understanding is to know when a better source is likely to be found. Sometimes no suitable source exists. Talpedia (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Yes i agree sometimes there isnt a better source available, but if we know some parts of the source to be incorrect, why do we need to relay that onto the wiki page? Seems a bit backwards, to provide something factually incorrect on a wiki page just because there isnt a more recent source with correct terminology.

Also, the sources all make reference to 'high strength cannabis' in some way, and detail the percentages of thc too. Now why would they put that if the word skunk was fine? Because they didnt have a clue about the strains their users were actually using, and they knew that the term skunk wasnt proper. One source, when using the word skunk, always puts it in apostrophes, indicating they arent using it as an offical term per se. Surely this enough to prove its being used an a slang phrase?

Usually if a source can be proven to be incorrect in its terminology, wouldnt that source be considered not acceptable/antiquated? 

The only solution i can think of is getting a written clarification from one of the authors of the sources , which I can imagine is going to be very hard.

I only briefly read the sources, but it seems to me they were going off user subject submitted data. Eg, the people being studied were just giving the researchers info about their cannabis usage. Now unless those users grew it themselves, they wouldnt even be able to tell if its skunk no1 genetics or not. So to then put 'skunk' on the wiki page just seems crazy.

I mean to me its super obvious the sources are using it as a blanket term , using it next to terms such as high potency cannabis.

I just think the level of proof thats required from me isnt the same as that source required when written, yet we are all going off those sources. All the source required was the user telling them they smoke high strength weed, then that gets made into 'they smoke skunk'by the authors of the source, without any details of strains being given to the researchers.

But because its published, its just considered fact by wiki? And now I have to provide superior evidence than the source did, in order to get that section of the wiki removed/altered into preferable terms? Eg instead of using the word skunk and mentioning the strain, just put 'high potency cannabis', a term used by multiple sources in place or alongside the word skunk already.

Its an incorrect addition to the wiki article, its really frustrating.

What abut providing details/sources about other high potency non skunk related strains? Surely thats enough to disprove the usage alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Systema2000 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm tempted to delete this sentence

One of these strains is well known as skunk.

since we already talk about high potency strains and some sources don't mention it. Perhaps we could add a link to cannibis strains article. Do we object? Talpedia (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I was about to make this edit, but then I searched for "skunk thc content", because I felt like adding this information to the page on strains. And I found a whole bunch of releatively recent newspaper articles talking about "skunk's" THC content. [This page https://www.kcl.ac.uk/archive/news/ioppn/records/2018/february/uk-cannabis-market-dominated-by-high-potency-%27skunk%27] looks interesting as it's a paper looking at THC content. Talpedia (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Its nothing to do with 'skunk'. Theres countless other super high strength strains that have no skunk genetics. The issue is because in the uk the term skunk was used for any high strength weed. Then they started behaving like all high strength weed was a single strain called skunk. Including in the medical field. Systema2000 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

even in your own link the write it like this : high-potency 'skunk'. Why you think the air quotes are there? Researchers analysed almost a thousand police seizures of cannabis from London, Kent, Derbyshire, Merseyside and Sussex. The same areas were last sampled in 2005 and 2008. In 2016, 94% of police seizures were high-potency sinsemilla, also known as ‘skunk’, compared to 85% in 2008 and 51% in 2005.

Again, they dont say skkunk no1. They are using the term in the colloquial sense. Its the equivalent of the words dro/high grade/chronic.

Nothing to do with the actual strains. Its simply referring to high potency cannabis and at the same time disparaging an actual specific strain with all the bad press because they keep using an old term from the 90s/early 2000s.

No one uses the term skunk colloquially anymore. That shows how out of date the usage of this term is and how messed up the usage has become. Systema2000 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

Comma should be added after 'EAAT2' 123.208.227.204 (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for spotting, have a nice day --Ferien (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2022

The link for the source (The ICD-10 Classification...) of citation #13 is broken.

Drs; Sartorius N, Henderson AS, Strotzka H, et al. "The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines" (PDF). World Health Organization. bluebook.doc. p. 76. Retrieved 23 June 2021.

it currently is https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/bluebook.pdf

it should be changed to https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/37958 Reed12341234 (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Darcyisverycute (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2022 (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)

• 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)

Is anyone planning to address each of the concerns I raised below, three weeks ago? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

....getting there.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:11, 17 January 2020 (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)

• 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)

All as vauthors now...but what happens with editors in that format...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Cas, because cite journal and cite book are not in sync with vauthor, I manually format books. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

AGAIN: citation consistency fixed. Vauthor on author names, more than six authors truncated to three et al. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:53, 16 February 2020 (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.

that "one year later" be "within one year of the transient episode"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Also, this section has stubby paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I fixed this myself,[1] but the source is extremely dated (2005). Tagged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 24 January 2020 (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)

Experimental stuff like this has been moved to the eternal purgatory of Research directions .....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 18 January 2020 (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.

References

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)

Clozapine

See [2] [3], [4] [5] update needed throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Minocycline

Update needed: [6] [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Management section a wreck, Featured article review needed

Since July 2022, edits have deteriorated the Management section. I don't have time to clean up all of it. Unless others start helping in the maintenance of this article, which is WAY too long, it should go to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Casliber, Graham Beards, Colin, Spicy, and Ajpolino: I am listing this at WP:FARGIVEN, and along with Major depressive disorder, Lung cancer, and all the other medical FAs that are no longer being maintained to FA standards, will start sending them to FAR. THIS article is among Wikipedia's most highly viewed, and WP:MED simply no longer has editors interested in maintaining it (or any of the older FAs); I am one person only, and am sick and tired of trying to hold the finger in that dike. The article has quite seriously deteriorated and is constantly hit with advocacy editing, and I simply cannot clean all of it up myself, and I'm tired of the demoralizing effect of seeing WP:MED abandon its highly viewed FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)