Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Atypical antipsychotics

Atypical antipsychotics

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:Atypical_antipsychotic

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) Should the postulations and references on the claims of cognitive and schizophrenic negative symptom improvements of certain atypical antipsychotics and adjunctive antidepressant use be added to the atypical antipsychotics page and be allowed to remain in the near future?

Hi, I'm having difficulty with another user on posting and retaining certain knowledge about the effects of atypical antipsychotics on the negative symptoms of schizophrenia and the effects of adjunctive antidepressant use to an antipsychotic also for these negative symptoms on the atypical antipsychotics page. There are a number of issues I would like to understand better. To start with, I'm wondering whether the following information is acceptable to be added based on the cited references after them.


 * Current antipsychotics as a whole demonstrate only modest, not clinically significant, improvement for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia.
 * However, the atypical antipsychotics olanzapine, risperidone, and aripiprazole have demonstrated cognitive benefits, such as improvements in verbal learning and memory, processing speed, and selective attention.
 * Clozapine is a well-documented atypical antipsychotic for improving both the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia.
 * Adjunctive antidepressant use with an atypical antipsychotic has been demonstrated to be effective for improving the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, such as anhedonia, cognitive deficits, affective flattening, and avolition.

Alexbrn removed my study about adjunctive antidepressant use with an antipsychotic as being effective for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. This article clearly showed multiple studies that demonstrated improvements with this medicine regimen. I feel that he is in the wrong to have done this.

Next, I'm wondering whether the following source is acceptable. It's from 2009 but it demonstrates asenapine's potent positive and negative symptom improvements and clearly cites many studies to backup its findings. describes it as an "old, poor source" without going into details. In what way does it fit this classification? Ridiculous. It's not like you can have a magic marker that automatically makes all knowledge that is already well established from 5+ years old studies to be updated stating the same thing every time a new year rolls along.


 * Asenapine markedly improves both the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

In one of my edits I tried adding some primary sources as "helpers" to a secondary source that spoke to the same effect, such as these:, which I thought, as per WP:MEDRS: "Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources.", might be permissible. Although it seems a bit unclear since in the same guideline it states that primary sources should not be used to debunk, contradict, or counter conclusions made by another secondary source. But if the primary sources by proxy of a secondary source report the same findings for the postulation made, what then? Well, it's not that important if they aren't acceptable to be used.

First Alexbrn described atypical antipsychotics as having no therapeutic benefit for schizophrenia, which, as I stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atypical_antipsychotic#Claim_that_atypical_antipsychotics_have_no_therapeutic_benefit_for_schizophrenia. here] on the talk page, is an insult to the psychiatric profession and decades of clearly established professional research. Now he states that "Overall there is no good evidence that atypical antipsychotics have any therapeutic benefit for treating the negative symptoms of schizophrenia". He seems to be following in line with the current previous postulation made by Doc James, which states that "Antipsychotics only appear to improve secondary negative symptoms of schizophrenia in the short term and may worsen negative symptoms overall." I also want to draw attention to the fact that the article where this is being written is the atypical antipsychotics page, not the antipsychotics page, so it's placement is somewhat ill-fitting. Both of these statements are crude overgeneralizations that ignore the effects of atypical antipsychotics' multi-faceted binding profiles. I would like to have mediation to review this matter.


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Reixus   [Talk]   [Contribs]  08:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Decline. Suggest adding to thread on this topic at WT:MED where other editors are also engaged. Alexbrn (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Decline. Suggest adding to thread on this topic at WT:MED where other editors are also engaged. Alexbrn (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite for mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation". For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC) (Chairperson)