Talk:Psychosis/Archive 2

Comments about delusions
Both the articles I source in this section are behind a pay wall. So I am including quotes here (I didn't feel quotes helped in the text).

"The results are consistent with reports in the literature, with persecutory content being the most common delusional cat-egory. The other main categories of somatic, religious and grandiose also are well represented, with a large number of patients also reporting more specific persecutory beliefs of being poisoned. That more patients after 1950 believe they are being spied upon is consistent with the development of related  technology   and   the   advent   of   the   Cold   War.   Delusional content tended to reflect the culture at the time, with focus on syphilis in the early 1900s, on Germans dur-ing World War II, on Communists during the Cold War, and on  technology  in  recent  years.  Indeed,  delusions  now  are  being reported relating to computers (Stompe et al., 2003), the internet (Bell et al., 2005) and computer games (Forsyth et al., 2001)."

From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0020764010396413

I think Open Dialogue sufficiently quotes the statements about believing the content of delusions are significant.

--Talpedia (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

no edit war
There should be no edit war because of that. It is the truth, just ask patients about that.--Thoknr1 (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Intro
I'm not a doctor or an expert in the field but I've got the technical reasoning of why this happens. You (and probably I) can find the related sources on the net but I don't have the sources, it will take too much time for me to find the relevant information and I'm not that knowledgeable in editing the main Wikipedia page. I'm writing this in for knowledgeable people who know where to look in the hopes that this will help them somehow

The Brain
Any technical information or explanation has to start with the brain. Almost all of the data you'll find on the brain will talk ONLY about the neurons. A book I've listened to that was published in 2010 and was a bit too detailed explained a lot of new stuff on the brain which I'm summarizing here:


 * The only cells in your body which do not replicate/duplicate themselves are the neurons in your brain, they're as old as you are.
 * The brain has been studied by us for about 200 years
 * For every neuron there's about 2-4 "white cells" called gliel
 * The gliel cells are responsible for maintaining the neurons
 * The gliel cells communicate by calcium waves (which is the reason why at first science didn't see them do anything and gave them a name in Latin which means 'junk')

Maintaining Neurons
When the neurons are too excited they may be harmed in the long term which is the reason why the gliel cells suppress them. You can see this phenomena when you exit a nightclub with a loud music and then your earing is temporary impaired and weak

Explanation one according to my own personal experience
The same way that someone can run, ignore any pain in his legs until something happens to his legs the same thing a human can do to his brain. Basically getting too "excited" and getting neurons too "excited" until certain parts of his brain "shut down" or suppressed to a very low level like the example I gave in the 'maintaining neurons' section.

Certain parts of the brain each have their own 'job' and responsibility which is the reason why you see certain phenomena like the person not talking or the person finding it difficult to distinguish between reality and what goes on in his head

Explanation two
This is basically a shot in the dark. I'm sure that there are a lot of other reasons why this stuff happen some of this could be 'medical' in ways science hasn't discover yet. like the reason might be some imbalance in the gliel cells or under certain conditions and science might be able to discover the cause and might be able to even come up with drugs that target the gliel cells.

This is basically me saying that the first explanation is probably NOT valid to all cases since each person is different but I'm now knowledgeable in the field enough to even throw wild guesses

Summery
I hope this will help someone or some researcher/scientists who will study the phenomena farther and will advance our knowledge of the brain significantly. I know I would be happy to hear more information about those gliel cells

Shachar2like (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Delerium Tremens
This review, unfortunately pay-walled, seems like a good summary of alcohol and psychosis. It identifies alcohol-induced psychotic disorder (not on wikipedia) and distinguishes it (but notes similarity) with Delerium Tremens and schizophrenia.

It looks like another one of these "niche" disorders (noting the old literature) which will probably not be well-distinguished in terms of treatment methodology. Talpedia (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent anon edits
I don't have time to check the recent anon edits in detail, can a veteran look over their edits to make sure they comply with Wikipedia's standards?--Megaman en m (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I rolled back the most recent batch of anon edits, semi-protected the page, and invited the current IP editor to comment here. Ajpolino (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This "psychosis" page is misinformation/misleading
An individual diagnosed with psychosis does not have difficulty determining what is real and not real. They are instead hypersensitive to the world around them and have the ability to perceive things normal non-sensitives cannot perceive. the phrase "have difficulty determining what is real and not real" needs to be omitted. This phrase is an utterance from non-sensitives who lack understanding. simple as that.

additionally, schizophrenia is not a cause of psychosis, it is a symptom of psychosis. (schizophrenia does not cause psychosis). Bi-polar disorder does not cause psychosis. whoever wrote this page is a true idiot and is unfortunately misleading people. This page is misinformative, misleading, inaccurate, and often straight up wrong/incorrect. it needs to be fixed accordingly immediately.

I was not vandalizing the page. Unfortunately, the people who think they know what this disorder is and the people who unfortunately have enough authority to lock the page down did, in fact, vandalize the page. This page is a disgrace and should be taken down from the internet completely until it gets fixed because it is incorrect/wrong information, misleading, and off base totally on nearly every point.

The other subsections such as "hallucinations" and "delusions" are better/more well put together but the initial/primary/introductory text on the top is completely off base, wrong, stupid, misleading, and just straight up wrong information. Completely inaccurate, off base, and wrong/misleading information needs to be hidden from view immediately so as to not mislead any more people than what it has already misled.

I was told me revisions were archived. Scrutinize that archive and make changes, the person/people running this page are idiots, totally unknowledgeable about the issue/topic, and have no idea what they are talking about. This page is a disgrace, needs to be hidden immediately, changed, and then re-indoctrinated.

Whoever wrote the primary information at the top of the page should probably be reprimanded in some way. They have/had no idea what they are talking about, are spreading misinformation, taking down accurate information, and i am sure they mislead many. The top of the page (introduction) is a total disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Bilanzic (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for making an account and posting here. Frankly, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by volunteers that intends to even-handedly summarize mainstream knowledge on topics. You say An individual diagnosed with psychosis does not have difficulty determining what is real and not real... and schizophrenia is not a cause of psychosis, it is a symptom of psychosis. but from a quick search of the web, it looks like your view on the topic is not the mainstream view. The National Institute of Mental Health webpage begins The word psychosis is used to describe conditions that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality. The UK National Health Service site begins Psychosis is when people lose some contact with reality, and lists "schizophrenia" under the heading "Causes of psychosis". Actually, your insults are spot-on: the people putting together these pages (myself included) are often not experts, rather we are in fact idiots as you contend. Since we're non-experts volunteering our time, the goal is not to seek deep truthiness. Rather, the goal is to summarize what mainstream sources say on a topic. If you think this article is hogwash, your problem isn't with Wikipedia and its idiot editors; your problem is with mainstream sources of medical information. If you convince them to change what they write, Wikipedia will follow. You're not the first person to feel a wrong needs to be right on Wikipedia, and this type of situation is briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs. Like I said, thanks for posting here, and I hope you're staying well. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The people who wrote the page did not write it from their own unsupported views. They found the best published reliable sources, all 158 of which are enumerated in the Psychosis section, and them summarised the published information to the best of their abilities. That's how Wikipedia works. It does not work if everybody who has a hypothesis about a subject can write what they believe; that would be anarchy. Because what you wrote was not supported by reliable sources, it was reverted. I understand that you feel strongly that what you believe is the truth, but how would you feel if somebody else with different beliefs came along and changed the article to reflect those beliefs? That's why one of Wikipedia's core policies is WP:No original research.
 * So, if you're going to improve the article, you're going to have to stop insulting the intelligence of the people who contributed to the article. They understood how to find the best sources and summarise them, accurately and neutrally. You don't seem to have acquired that skill yet. You need to read the guidance at WP:MEDRS and then find the reliable, scholarly, secondary sources that support your beliefs. Then you can list those sources here and propose revisions to the article text that those sources would support.
 * If you can't find good quality, reliable, scholarly, secondary sources that support your beliefs, then you don't have to give up those beliefs, but you can't use Wikipedia to promote them. Sorry. --RexxS (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand and have just recently reviewed the citing tools. I am brand new to the wikipedia community. People should not be allowed to hide behind cites and say whatever it is they want because they attached a cite to it. It is better to not say anything at all rather than say something that is misleading. I recommended the phrase "[having difficulty determining reality]" and other phrases be omitted for this reason. My warnings: be careful with HOW you place information, even though you have found a source that confirms your expressions, placing those expressions within the page in certain ways can mislead others to the degree where the information is actually incorrect totally such as the causes of psychosis expressions. I will likely return to this page if/when I can find some time/energy to get some cites. The introduction to the concept/topic on this page is horrendous lol. I would highly recommend the introduction to this page be temporarily hidden from view, re-arranged. or hidden from view indefinitely until accurate information and cites can be found. Also, please unlock the page, I know now a little better of what it is you will be requiring and understand my "vvandalism". I was new to the community until this morning, when I joined. I will not egregiously edit the page again without cites and request the page be opened back up so I can fix this page with cites later on. Not confusing anyone is especially important concerning this topic because people who have this issue are already confused enough as it is. To see misleading information to this extent (to the degree where it is actually completely incorrect information) is beyond concerning/worrisome. People will come to this page for help/understanding and will get even more lost and confused reading what is written there now. Disgraceful. Shameful, despicable. Sorry. True. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Bilanzic (talk • contribs) 19:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Mark Bilanzic (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken to assume that the information is misleading. I've patiently explained explained how Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources, and you've provided none. Until you do, you can rest assured that your insulting protestations here are treated with the disdain they deserve.
 * What part of You need to read the guidance at WP:MEDRS and then find the reliable, scholarly, secondary sources that support your beliefs. Then you can list those sources here and propose revisions to the article text that those sources would support. didn't you understand? --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021
I recently made large scale changes to this "psychosis" wiki page and the people in control of this page reverted nearly all my changes.

I made a comment in the "talk" section. Please read the comment as it details the main problem with the page and the people in control of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Bilanzic (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What Psychosis Really Is
The state of the psychology field is bad. The leaders of the field of psychology are "off" with their interpretation of this disorder. The following is an attempt to make up for their shortcomings, is much more accurate information, much less misleading, but unfortunately, not well accepted ideas in the field of psychology, which is why the following information is in the "talk" section here in Wikipedia. It is open for discussion/argument and is not generally well accepted/established/accredited information.

Changes to lead
Psychosis is an abnormal condition that mainly affects the senses of the individual. An individual diagnosed with psychosis experiences abnormally powerful and largely uncontrollable dreams and sensations (hallucinations) regardless of whether it is day or night. This overactive dream state is dangerous because the hallucinations, either auditory, visual, or sensual, are typically strong enough to distract/annoy the psychotic individual to enough of an extent to force the individual to lose sleep at night as well as affect even the simplest forms/degrees of decision making in their waking life which, in turn, diminishes the individual's ability to perform simple, normal, everyday tasks when they otherwise would not normally have any hinderances.

Because psychotic individuals experience incredibly powerful dreams, many psychotic individuals who have mild symptoms and refuse medical treatment refer to themselves as "psychic". Normal nightly dreams as normal individuals know them are widely known and accepted by many as warnings and indications of certain life forces, events, and sequences. Because psychotic individuals/psychics have these night dreams as we know them during the daytime, frequently, and often, they often claim to be able to tell the future, divulge intimate details about a person, and provide advice to people without having to wait to fall asleep first.

Psychosis is very hazardous to the mental health of the individual if left unchecked/unattended but can be easily controlled by prescription anti-psychotics which can restore the individual fully back to normal. An individual diagnosed with psychosis will likely require additional and/or constant future treatment despite the reduction of symptoms fixed by the anti-psychotic medication.

Psychosis has many different causes. Drug use in general, whether prescription or illegal, is usually linked in some way or another to the individual diagnosed with psychosis.[4] Psychosis can induce certain mental illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder due to the nature of the condition. ... [snip unattributed copying]

-Mark Bilanzic (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Changes to Hallucinations
In the sense of psychosis, hallucinations are dreams that occur within the mind of the psychotic individual without regard to whether the victim is asleep or awake. When an individual experiences psychosis, hallucinations often arrive without warning or control and can take form as either sounds, visuals, and/or sensations.

Visual hallucinations can be characterized as beyond ordinary perceptions of light/colors of the rainbow as well as shadows in the absence of physically touchable and otherwise normally visible external stimuli. Hallucinations are different from illusions and perceptual distortions, which are the misperception of external stimuli. When an individual is diagnosed with psychosis, the hallucinations seen by the individual can be manifested from within the individual themself out into the nearby space around them or can be perceived by the individual as he/she notices the behavior of others who may or may not be psychic/psychotic, or may be mildly psychic/psychotic and not know they are. ... [snip unattributed copying]

Changes to Delusions
When psychotic individuals describe their experiences to others, others often label their perceptions as delusions either because they cannot perceive/understand what the psychotic individual perceived or the perceptions are embarrassing or shameful to the precepted. ... [snip unattributed copying]

--Mark Bilanzic (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Response
Please excuse my refactoring of your post, but you breached the terms of the CC-BY-SA licence by copying a considerable part of an article without attribution. I have therefore removed the excess which is identical to the content of the article, and which does not need duplication to understand your proposal. What remains, I believe, are the changes you are proposing.

Almost none of your proposed changes are sourced, and in the one that is sourced, Drug use in general, whether prescription or illegal, is usually linked in some way or another to the individual diagnosed with psychosis, the source does not support the change you made. I have marked up the points with Template:Citation needed or failed verification where you have introduced information with no indication of the source you used for that information.

The lead must stand as a summary of the most important points in the article. Your proposal introduces content in the lead that is not a summary of any content in the body of the article, and in its recurrent reference to the "psychic" delusion, places an undue emphasis on a minor aspect that has no place in the lead.

I fail to see any justification in your preamble for making changes to our article. Medical articles on Wikipedia follow this guideline:

That is taken from WP:MEDSCI, which will give you the full context. Unfortunately, those requirements directly contradict your desire to insert content that is "not generally well accepted/established/accredited information". --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * you beat me to it. I took down all information not of my own work seemingly simultaneously when you did.  These talk sections do not require citation.  Why did you put "citation needed" in my talk comment?--Mark Bilanzic (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * in my post above, I wrote "I have marked up the points with Template:Citation needed or failed verification where you have introduced information with no indication of the source you used for that information." Did you miss that or didn't you understand it? I have tried to point out where you need to tell us the source where you found your information. That's how Wikipedia's verification policy works and nobody will add your suggestions to the article without seeing the sources you used. --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * in my post above, I wrote "I have marked up the points with Template:Citation needed or failed verification where you have introduced information with no indication of the source you used for that information." Did you miss that or didn't you understand it? I have tried to point out where you need to tell us the source where you found your information. That's how Wikipedia's verification policy works and nobody will add your suggestions to the article without seeing the sources you used. --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I have a better understanding of what a "Talk section" is in Wikipedia than you do. A talk section seems to be for situations exactly like this, talk about the topic, but with no cites, designed to spur up conversation, [excitement], [motivation], provide unaccredited viewpoints for the purpose of advancing the topic/subject at some future time. I am leaving your comments/response/revisions there only to show others this information is not accredited yet, or at least, I have not taken the time out to research for some cites, which will probably be hard to find/non-existent. So, I am glad you pointed out to everyone very adamantly what I already stated in my preamble at the top of this talk comment lol.
 * And maybe you don't have a clue what a talk page is. By definition a talk page is solely for discussing improvements to the related article. Period. See Help:Talk pages. It's not for half-baked speculation, righting great wrongs, or soapboxing your latest tinfoil-hat theories. Every piece of content on Wikipedia depends on sources and thinking that you can write source-free content here is quite beyond the Pale.
 * Yeah, I've pointed out to everyone that no article on Wikipedia can be written from sources that are non-existent. And that you didn't know that.
 * So get back under your bridge, do your research, and read some real sources – there are 158 already in the article for you to start learning from. Then you might be in a position to make some useful suggestions on improving the article. --RexxS (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts. I would agree that psychology and psychiatry don't really know what's going on with psychosis. I might be a little less harsh of research psychology, and indeed therapeutic psychology - there is a plurality of models out there. I'm not really sure that psychology has leaders, psychiatry is a bit a different matter and it lives within medicine which comes along with a whole bunch of norms about what "sciene" and "clinical practice" should look like. Psychosis can exist with only delusions and no hallucinations, I would argue that the line between hallucinations and delusions is a little fuzzy (e.g. remembering that something was the case after the fact versus perceiving it). I think you will be able to find discussion of psychosis as a dream state within some psychological literature if you go looking, and this might be a reasonable addition (particularly if placed within the context of other psychological models). I imagine you would also be able to dig up some literature on the relationship between religious experiences and psychosis.
 * Psychosis inducing schizophrenia isn't that implausible, particularly as schizoprhenia is quite ill-defined. Schizophrenia more or less means repeating psychosis without a cooccuring mood disorder as far as I am concerned. Within psycholoy you can find some viewpoints that distinguish between psychosis itself and "delusional belief systems" that may be caused by them. I do think this is a failure of the medical system in many ways, that it fails to distinguish sequalia of psychosis from psychotic symptoms themselves. See for example . Even within very "biological model" framings you find people theorising along the lines of "stress begets dopamine, begets delusions, begets stress" - Robin Murray has suggested this.
 * I have some sympathy with the idea that there is tendency of those interacting with those who have experience psychosis to reinterpret otherwise normal conversations as delusions. For example in this TED talk: someone describes this precise process. I imagine such discussion exists in the literature. There's a whole body of psychoanalytic thought that views delusions as having metaphorical meaning, and there is research that shows the content of psychotic delusions are dependent upon culture. Also there's a whole lot of philosophical writing from a "phenomological" point of view that is of relevance to psychosis.
 * I can see how WP:MEDRS could potentially be a little problematic for an article on psychosis. A whole bunch of psychology deals with psychological and behavioural constructs where there is very little link between neurology and these constructs, and I'm not sure WP:MEDRS deals with this very well. There is clearly a cognitive component to psychosis as you can describe the thought processes through conversation, and introspection, and there are clearly drugs that have predictable (on average) effects upon cognition - but the link between the two isn't really there, and in my opinion much of the biological model is constructed to justify the use of the drugs rather than the other way around. (See Moncrieff and the medical model). That said, we probably don't want to allow everyone and their neighbours preferred model of the mind and psychosis into this article. Rather we should prefer those models that have had a reasonable amount of thought and criticism (which correlates with discussion in quality sources for us).
 * I imagine a section on "psychological models of psychosis" might be a reasonable addition to this article - if it does not already exist and I had thought about adding one for a while. Perhaps a sentene or two in the lead could introduce this section.
 * I think completely ignoring the prevaiing (if largely unproven and "untheoretical" -- "people do weird stuff, give them drugs until they stop, then don't let them stop taking the drugs ever") medical model entirely from the introduction as you seem to do would be wrong Talpedia (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I imagine a section on "psychological models of psychosis" might be a reasonable addition to this article - if it does not already exist and I had thought about adding one for a while. Perhaps a sentene or two in the lead could introduce this section.
 * I think completely ignoring the prevaiing (if largely unproven and "untheoretical" -- "people do weird stuff, give them drugs until they stop, then don't let them stop taking the drugs ever") medical model entirely from the introduction as you seem to do would be wrong Talpedia (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

NOT A FORUM
Please see WP:NOTAFORUM; article talk pages are for discussing improvement to articles ‘’based on reliable sources’’— not opinions, not TED talks, not our own ideas. Wikipedia reflects what mainstream WP:MEDRS sources write about. Please refrain from using this page otherwise. Also, it is generally preferable to address items in the body of the article before attempting to rewrite a lead. WP:LEAD is a summary of what is in the body. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Every idea I quoted has a large body of literature associated with it, and some acceptance within sections of the psychological community that are involved in treatment within health services like NHS. Nothing I have quoted here is "my own idea" it exists within the literature. Referring to a TED talk is a reasonable way to summarize large movements like Hearing Voices Network. I agree that rewriting the lead is not the way. I think that including a section on psychological models of psychosis is quite reasonable, and I don't see a particular problem with discussing my understanding of a literature that I have spend hundreds if not thousands of hours of reading about in general terms. Talpedia (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The way to approach that is to say something like: I propose a section name X based on reliable source Y, and listing that source. That saves everyone time and watchlist checking.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure - I'd probably just make the edits myself if I was driving this. I guess the point of my post was to address the proposed edit with reference to the actual literature that exists close to the topics and the edit that we could make addressing this concern: have a short section discussing psychological literature on the topic (and making clear that none of it really has any RCTS), and add a sentence or two talking about it in the lead. I'll come with specific edits and literature if I make further comments. Talpedia (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Benefits
Is there any discussion on Wikipedia or elsewhere about the possible beneficial aspects of madness or psychosis, temporary or long-term, among individuals or groups? I vaguely recollect some non-European cultures valuing madness (in some form or another) highly. But I may be remembering incorrectly. Thank you. &#x27A7; datumizer   &#9742;  00:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm cautious about WP:NOTFORUM, but really quickly. In this talk, Sapolsky talks about shamanism religious and schizophrenia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEnklxGAmak). As a rule, there are arguments about the tendency towards the disorder providing advantages. Neuroticism seems correlated with schizophrenia and a bunc hof mental health problems, neuroticism has clear benefits in terms of being risk aware. There is some questionable evidence about schizophrenia and creativity being correlated - with some speculative theories about density of neurons on the thalamus - but people genuinely don't know - see thalamo-corticol loop or something like that and you can start coming up with all sorts of untestable theories - kind of like psychiatrists like to do. There are controversial and questionable statistics that talk about both the higher rate of intelligence and mental health disorders amongst ashkenazi jews, with an associated that selecting for intelligence increases mutations that both increase intelligence but put an individual at risk of mental health disorders - think the risk of mental health disorders is worth the reward of potentially higher intelligence. Going a bit more wooh - there is the whole "left brain / right brain" that sees the role of dreams as to create artistics models of the world - see Jung on this sort of stuff, in this regard you could view schizophrenic tendencies as more motion between "dream world" and the real world - but again theories about the function of the mind are quite easy to come up with - rather less easy to falsify. There are countless psychodynamic theories of how the mind work and they can't really all be true.
 * But... I might suggest hanging out on reddit for this sort of conversation, because here we are mostly supposed to restrict ourselves to discussions of changes we are planning to make. To avoid the ire of busy editors with busier watchlists...

Talpedia (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. It would be interesting to do some further investigation and add some of that to the article, but my time is limited. Also, thanks for the Reddit suggestion. I don't spend much time there. Maybe I should. &#x27A7; datumizer   &#9742;  18:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Darciem's recent edits
There seems to be some conflict over recent edits by : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychosis&type=revision&diff=1040714666&oldid=1040714294&diffmode=source. I think these edits express a viewpoint over which there is little certainty. There aren't really trials showing effective psychotherapy treatments for schizophrenia - which is not to say that are possible.

It's worth noting that the viewpoints expressed here do have some support both currently and historically. It shows up in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stack_Sullivan and to some degree in Open Dialog interventions (that are being trialed by the NHS). The medical framing of neurotransmitter malfunctions is far from uncontroversial.

Personally, I feel psychological innovation may come from treating trauma. Since adverse childhood experiences are very highly correlated with psychosis and there will be less of a strangehold of the medical model (which in my opinion exists as much for the legitimacy of psychiatry, protection of others, and application of acute interventions to chronic methods as others things). This personal opinion is of little relevance to editing however.

Talpedia (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

UCSF Wikipedia Elective November - December 2021
Hi everyone! I am a 4th year medical student at UCSF going into psychiatry, and I will be editing the psychosis page as part of a Wikipedia elective course. The quality of this article's sources is in need of improvement. I am planning to comb through all of the citations and references in this article to ensure that all references adhere to the MEDRS guidelines. In my efforts to improve the quality of this article and its references, I will verify that each piece of information in the article is appropriately cited. I will go through each reference, removing primary and low quality sources and assigning high quality sources when possible and appropriate. I hope we can make this a featured article again!

Work plan

By each of the following dates I plan to review and edit the following references:

12/3: References 1-56

12/8: References 57-112

12/14: References 112-168

ZenForest2561 (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Major Comments
Overall, the article is clearly highly refined in a lot of areas, and the areas in which you added or changed information fit well within the surrounding content. The citations that have been updated thus far (at least to my knowledge from our most recent Work-in-Progress) seem like high quality or specific references, and the information is presented in an objective, accessible manner. I feel like a majority of them are secondary sources when possible, and at first glance are reputable systematic reviews or meta-analyses whenever possible. At the same time, the references also follow a fairly standard format.

Minor Comments
While many of the comments of a similar format, there are some that might have missing information, which could be useful to add (e.g., ref. 20 [Lewis S, Escalona R, Keith S. "Phenomenology of Schizophrenia". In Sadock V, Sadock B, Ruiz P (eds.). Kaplan and Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. Wolters Kluwer.] could use a date and/or edition potentially? Otherwise I can clearly see an approximate point at which the references become more outdated and turn to primary sources.

In regard to your changes to the article content, I feel like you present information in a clear and objective manner. I think the effort could improve with smaller changes to the surrounding content, if at all possible. I felt like there were parts of the article that used less commonly known words, such as "espoused", that could be replaced to make the content more accessible without changing the meaning. I know that was clearly not your work plan, so just an extra thought. Keep up the great work!

Jrstultz (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dmwhite98. Peer reviewers: Ashleyff.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 November 2021 and 19 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ZenForest2561. Peer reviewers: Jrstultz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review Response
Thank you for this thoughtful review Jrstultz! I appreciate that you've taken the time to review my work updating the references for this page, and highlighted typos in formatting. I've gone through the sources again and fixed any errors that existed.

ZenForest2561 (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Layladye (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Neurobiology section: incorrect sentence
"NMDA antagonists replicate some of the so-called "negative" symptoms like thought disorder in subanesthetic doses (doses insufficient to induce anesthesia), and catatonia in high doses)" This is wrong, I'm not sure it's necessary to put negative in quotes, but either way, neither thought disorder nor catatonia are negative symptoms of psychosis. Anditres (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)