Talk:Schizophrenia

Problems with the article

• Currently the lead is too generic. The description may as well fit for obsessive-compulsive disorder
• Ideally we want to at least mention the topics in the en article in some way, ie. extend the article.
• Despite being simpler than en, we want to be correct

I do not have the necessary knolwedge, so help would be appreciated. Note: Sipmlifying a complex article we can do, however, come up with a simple article from the start we cannot. --Eptalon (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed some inconsistencies between the EN version and the ZH version of the article. The one at EN defines schizophrenia as "a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental disorder" (which suggests that it is some form of "classification") while the ZH version defines the term in a similar way as to how we define it ("a type of mental illness"). Chenzw  Talk  15:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Positive and negative symptoms?

The article mentions positive and negative symptoms in the section about drug treatment. I think these ought to be explained, but I'm afraid I only have a very vague understanding myself. --Mickel (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to explain it as simple as I could from the knowledge I have myself. I'm not sure if that will do, though. /Averuuh ♥ 15:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Positive symptoms are called positive because it is something that isnt there when somebody is mentally well e.g. someone who is mentally well will not have hallucinations hence they are added

Negative symptoms are called negative because it is as if something has been taken away. For example someone who is normally always out with friends, staying in all the time and being withdrawn.

That explanation is even more confusing... /Averuuh ♥ 18:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A positive symptom is something a person has because of their illness, which a normal person does not, such as hallucinations - normal people don't hallucinate under normal circumstances. A negative symptom is a deficit of something in a person because of their illness that is present in normal people, such as anhedonia - normal people are able to experience pleasure. Jim Michael (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Updated article as a simplified version of the main English

As per this project here https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:MED/Translation_project --Jmh649 (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

98 terms/words which need to be simplified

I did a quick search for low frequency (and therefore not simple) vocabulary in the article as updated by Content Rules as part of their project. These are the first 98 words or terms that need to be simplified. I'm pretty sure non of them are already linked, but apologies in advance if I missed one or two. In order, they should be:

• removed (if possible)
• removed and replaced with simpler words or phrases in English
• linked to an article on Simple English wikipedia (and that article should not be complex)

Wiktionary should be used sparingly if at all. When these are done, there is even more vocabulary to be simplified and then sentence structure as well. Gotanda (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

acute  Done	adolescence  Done	aftermath  Done	agitated  Done
agitation  Done	ambivalence	ameliorate  Done	amphetamines  Done
atypical	autism  Done	bipolar  Done	catatonic  Done
causal  Done	causality  Done	chronicle  Done	cited  Done
classification	cocaine  Done	cognitive	delirium  Done
delusional  Done	dementia  Done	diagnosis	diagnostic
disapproval  Done	discontent  Done	disproved  Done	dysfunction  Done
epidemiology  Done	exacerbate  Done	finland  Done	frontal cortex
genetic  Done	genetics  Done	glutamate	grandiose  Done
hallucinations  Done	hemisphere  Done	hereditary  Done	hypothesis
immigration  Done	impair  Done	impaired  Done	impairment  Done
impulse control  Done	inconclusive  Done	innate  Done	inpatient  Done
insidious  Done	interpersonal  Done	intoxication  Done	involuntary  Done
irrational  Done	irritability  Done	jealousy  Done	malnutrition  Done
manic	marijuana  Done	mediating  Done	metabolic syndrome
mimic  Done	mute  Done	neural  Done	neurological  Done
neurons  Done	neurotransmitter  Done	onset	outpatient  Done
pervasive  Done	positron emission tomography  Done	postmortem  Done	postulated  Done
postures  Done	prenatal  Done	prevalence  Done	prognosis  Done
proteins  Done	psychiatric  Done	psychological  Done	psychosis  Done
receptors  Done	relapse  Done	relapses  Done	resonance  Done
serotonin  Done	simplistic  Done	single-photon emission tomography  Done	stigma  Done
stimuli  Done	stupor  Done	subjective  Done	temporal lobes
threefold  Done	transient  Done	unintelligible  Done	viral  Done
womb  Done	worsen  Done

End of list. Gotanda (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Writing for a general audience

When we write for a general audience we use "person" not "patient" and we do not specify "doctor's" Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion to use "person" not patient. However, by rewording without the word "doctor", you have written those passages in the passive. Have you looked at the guidelines Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_pages? The simplest sentence structure is subject-verb-object. We need some term there. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there are exceptions where a doctor is not the person acting, but in most cases, I believe doctors or their agents are performing these action. At the 10,000 foot level, is not "doctor" an appropriate word to use? Who is "we" in Jmh649's first sentence, would the Washington Post use the word "doctor" when writing about Schizophrenia? What is a good, short Anglo-Saxon word for "health-care-giver"? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've been trying to think about this today. Healthcare professional or mental health professional come to mind, but doctor is plain and simple. Is it common for the person diagnosing or treating schizophrenia to not be a doctor? I expect psychiatrists are usually filling that role, but does anyone else, really? Gotanda (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In many countries yes people who treat schizophrenia are not psychiatrists. The "we" I refer to are those that are writing medical content in English. It is important to write in an encyclopedic tone. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should write in an "encyclopedic tone." However, I believe that means speaking in an objective voice and attributing opinions to particular speakers or groups. Simple English Encyclopedic Tone (or writting style) means active voice, short Anglo-Saxon word, minimizing avoidable jargon, etc. I believe it does not mean "writing for children" but there are other people here who disagree and would say "write for a 12-year-old." Academic writing is terrible. (I have done some.) The technically accurate term may be "qualified medical professional", but for our readers "doctor" captures the same idea. Another problem is using "prescription drugs" instead of "drugs." Non-prescription drugs can affect a schizophrenic's behavior as a side effect, so is the word "prescription" necessary? Similarly, "drugs and medications" should be shortend to "drugs". The problem is the sophistication of the target audience. Eskimos have 12 different words for "snow". We just call all different forms of snow with one word. For the purpose of discussing the diagnosis of schizophrenics, "doctor" can capture what we meant. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Readability

There has been some simplifying of the introduction. A quick test gives these figures:

• Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score is 44 (0 to 100, higher is best), Simple English aims for 70+
• Flesch-Kincaid grade level is 10.7th grade, 8th grade is the average American reading level.

While these figures are only part of the process of simplifying, they do give an indication of what needs to be done.--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

How about now? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Doc James, I replaced the "Complex" tag because there are still passages that are not simplified. Also, it needs a thorough copyedit to make sure that simplification hasn't introduced errors. I will keep at it, but have to go to work. Sentence structure should follow a basic subject verb object order when possible. Putting the subject at the front of the sentence improves readability greatly. More later, Gotanda (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Prevention

What does this sentence mean? "Prevention is difficult because there are no reliable markers for the later development of the condition." Does this mean that you can not measure the success of prevention, because you do not know if the person was going to develop schizophrenia? --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It means that there is no reliable test to determine who will get schizophrenia in the future.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Udate: issues found

I already commented above, and I list some of the issues found:

• "Change in personality": While this is easy to understand, it may also be misleading: An alcoholic also changes in personality: If he does not get the alcohol he needs, he will be in a bad mood, when he drank, he will seek out fights/confrontations, and will be easy to anger. Yet alcoholism is probably not a mental disorder. In other words, care needs to be taken to explain the terms used. The change in personality of an alcoholic is probably quite different from the change in someone with Dissociative identity disorder, or somenoe with eg. Obsessive-compulsive disorder, or even someone with clinical depression, or other mood disorders....
• The phases section probably needs some links explaining the terms. As someone who isn#t a medical doctor, I have no idea what "Pre-psychotic Prodrome" may actually stand for, other than being a label used to classify (as in: some of the balls are green, others are red...)
• Can we get some kind of external links (eg. to self-help groups, if they exist?)
• I didn't have a-detailed look, but I guess to be scientifically accurate, the longer sentences are needed

Other than that, I can only say: Good work. :) --Eptalon (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Cutting out phases?

The phases form is not very informative, it is full of scientific jargon and the link is broken so I take the liverty of removing it. Feel free to put it back for anybody with a good justification for all this jargon and with a good secondary source.Ex-nimh-researcher (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

neural networks?

I hva deleted the following section: An electrical impulse called an action potential travels down the axon of a neuron. At the end of the neuron the action potential causes the release of different chemicals called neurotransmitters, into the space - called the synapse - between that axon, and the axon or dendrite of the next neuron.

The neurotransmitters cross the synapse and set up the action potential in the next neuron. There are different types of neurotransmitters; dopamine, glutamate and serotonin, are three which are linked to the symptoms of schizophrenia. It could be there is too much of a neurotransmitter in one area of the brain or not enough in others. It is not yet known for sure.

The neurons in the brain are connected, and form pathways, which in turn form "neural networks", which is like the brains wiring. To complete a task -like recalling a memory - usually more than one region of the brain is involved, and the signals travel along the specific neural pathways in the neural network responsible for that type of task. People with schizophrenia have been shown to have problems that affect these neural networks.

There is no reference and doesn't really fit in. Feel free to put it back with a good ref and in a place where it fits.Ex-nimh-researcher (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. We can - and do, to some extent - deal with basic neurology elsewhere. I am wondering whether we could shorten and simplify the treatment sections. This is not meant as a page to teach professionals; it is meant for general readers whose grasp of English is a bit limited. As such, the page is long, and too complex in its language. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added two sentences in the Medication section, please review and amend as you see fit. Not being a doctor, I also do not have any reference I could add. I have also written a stub for the article "receptor antagonist" I linked to. --Eptalon (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Pre-onset symptoms

It has proven extremely difficult to predict onset of psychosis, so I am removing this section since it is also too complex. The references also don't really contain what is claimed either.

Around 40 percent of men and 23 percent of women who have schizophrenia had "pre-onset" signs of schizophrenia before they were 19 years old.[16] This "pre-onset" phase can occur as long as 30 months before symptoms begin.[17] During the pre-onset phase, people who go on to develop schizophrenia might have brief or self-limiting serious or violent symptoms,[18] as well as the non-specific symptoms of social withdrawal, annoyance, a general feeling of extreme unhappiness,[19] and clumsiness.[20]

Violent behavior A minority of people with schizophrenia have an increased risk for aggressive behavior. The risk for aggressive behavior increases with comorbid alcohol abuse, substance abuse, antisocial personality, or neurological impairment. Individuals with severe mental illness such as schizophrenia have a greater risk of being victims of violence.[21] Ex-nimh-researcher (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not a doctor, but I think it would be important to point out that the majority of Schizophrenics are not violent. People with the disease are stigmatized; and there are many movies which portray violent people who are in fact mentally ill.... --Eptalon (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely!Lap234 (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Side effect of antidepressants

Iam putting back the section about side effects of medication. The source is very extensive secondary literature as pr WP:MEDRS, ant this may be an enormous problem in society. I have treated a woman who had been in anti psychotic therapy for over 20 years, and the psychosis was clearly triggered by antidepressants. Please feel free to discuss if it can be written in a better way. Lap234 (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of linked terms

In general, our policy with linked terms is not to explain them in full on every page where they are used. That adds to the volume of the prose, and leads to inaccuracy.

If we have a page, such as "diagnosis" or "symptom", let it do its job, or revise it if it is incorrect. Do not try and spell it out in full. Also, from a practical point of view, to spell out fully what these terms mean adds greatly to the quantity of prose which readers have to deal with.

Above all, technical terms must be used accurately. They are there for a reason. It is not our policy to take accurate terms and turn them into everyday English. It is to simplify the prose whilst still keeping the content accurate. Let the links do their job!

But if the term is not explained well, then revise that page.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross: Okay, thanks. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Should the Treatment, Management, and Prevention sections be merged?

They all seem like the same thing to me and is therefore redundant. Paradox Marvin (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I've not finished with this page but I will get back to it. Some of it was actually illiterate. It's a difficult subject for a wiki which has young readers. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• I'm pretty doubtful about the "may see, hear or believe things that are not real". I don't disagree that hallucination often happens in sufferers, but I don't like the phrasing as if it were a diagnostic feature. One of the difficulties is the condition is so varied that it is hard to convey why it is brought together under one heading. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Regrouping sections

I think it would be wise to regroup/comnbine sections that are just a paragraph (4-5 sentences) long, into bigger ones. If we ever wanted to get this to GA or VGA status, reading ease will be an issue. A new section every other sentence is not good for reading ease.--Eptalon (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Simplicity

This topic has been edited with sensitivity by several competent editors. There is no sense in having flags such as "complex" on a page which clearly cannot be simplified further whilst still keeping its essential content. This just is a difficult topic. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Simplicity again...

Hello all, it is nice the article is being edited and expanded. While editors do that, they should also consider the following:

• Shorter sentences are better
• This is a scientific topic, you'll need specific vocabulary. So they focus should also be on explaining (and on linking terms that exist in our Wikipedia or Wiktionary).
• When possible, avoid the passive voice; also avoid phrasal verbs, they are difficult to understand.

I am not a doctor, I cannot comment on the science part behind it. Eptalon (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

complexity

Far, far too complex for this wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

A natural place to form in two articles...

I think that a natural place to fork off into two articles are the forms of treatment. Inpatient treatment (in hospital treatment) and community treatment (outpatient treatment). What do people think? fr33kman 05:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That is a natural place to split. I have no argument against it. Of course it still leaves us with many problems. For example, many cases of schizophrenia look benign but turn out to be pretty serious and vice versa. Then there's the overall bias (not understood) where a much higher percentage of young females are prone compared to young males. These issues argue against splitting, or suggest that a male/female split might be productive. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I don't know the disease, do we also have to differentiate between treating a person who goes throuh "an episode" (sorry, probably wrong word), as opposed to a longer-term treatment & management. Is treating a person the first time different form treating him/her later on? Also, if drugs take 1-2 weeks to show an effect, I can imagine that changing drugs is a major hassle. Would it be worth a DYK that Torazine, the first-ever antipsychotic, developed in the 1950s, was to treat schizophrenia? Eptalon (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Reference abuse

The sheer number of references in the intro makes it extremely hard to read. References are needed to support what we say not distract from it. The more controversial something is, the more we need to provide this support. On the other hand, if something is of little to no controversy, the number of references should reflect that. We have 6 references to say that people with the condition do not always want to hurt themselves.. 6.. Is this statement that controversial? "The science of belief" 7 reference to say.. you know what, I have read that over multiple times and still have no idea as all the refs keep distracting me to the point I can not read that line completely.

The first section has 30+ refs. Many of them are overkill and distracting from the facts. There is just not that much controversial info in the intro, nor should there be. And rare is there a need for more than 3 refs in all but the most vague statement ("People say.." and a list of examples of people saying.. though that can often be one ref tag with multiple examples) Pure Evil (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to emphasise the point. This is the intro without the references:

Schizophrenia is a mental illness. People with schizophrenia have thoughts, emotions and feelings that other people find hard to understand. Like many other conditions, a specialized doctor known as psychiatrist, gives a diagnosis, after looking at a patient. After the diagnosis, different things can be done to help the person. Schizophrenia is a classification Schizophrenia is classed by clinical psychiatrists as a mental and behavioral disorder, a "mental disorder" and a "disease". Schizophrenia is classified as a "primary psychotic disorder". "Schizophrenia" "behavioral" problem is a subject of psychology, the science of behaviour. Usually, it is seen as a field of psychiatry. Schizophrenia can be a big problem for people who have it. There is a danger of someone experiencing or diagnosed with schizophrenia hurting themselves, which is known as "self-harm". Not all people with schizophrenia want to hurt themselves. The condition definitely needs psychiatric assessment because of the self-harm possibility, no time should be wasted if a young person begins to show the signs. Most of the time, schizophrenia starts in the late teens to early 20s. It is a relatively common condition. In 2022, it affected aboiut 24 million people worldwide. Schizophrenia is thought of as being abnormal. There is no medical cure, but there is treatment. Most people reccover. It is not known to be infectious in any way.

Like many other conditions, a specialized doctor known as psychiatrist, gives a diagnosis, after looking at a patient. (comma vomit)

"Schizophrenia" "behavioral" problem is a subject of psychology, the science of behaviour. (I got nothing)

Someone wrote those and didn't see anything wrong with them.. blinded by the references.

There is also the issue of multiple thoughts all flooded into one paragraph, but that a separate issue. 1 what it is. 2. what it does / dangers. 3. what can be done. at bare minimum. Pure Evil (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I added the following to the intro:

1. Some people with S have delusions, some have hallucinations.
2. When they are told, some fail to believe - they 'lack' insight.

Feel free to move things around. Given that it is mentioned in the intro, can/should we shorten the 'insight' section below? Eptalon (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem there is that I can look at the article on En. and see what changes I would need to make as I read through the intro. I do not get that here. I just see chaos and cannot think through it. Pure Evil (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Moved the few sentences as to classification (what medical field, etc) into a section of its own (likely too short). Added that things such as homelessnessness, long-term-unemployment etc can correlate (linked term) with S. Eptalon (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

If I take Obsessive-compulsive disorder, we get 25 references, for a text of rougly 18k. If I extrapolate that, this would mean about 6 times as many refs, for about 6 times the size? - Note, I don't say that OCD is a particularly good example, and I don't know what state it is in; it is a "moderately-long" article about a mental health issue. Eptalon (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Self-supporting intro?

Just an idea about the intro/lede. I think we should get the intro to a state where it is self-supoorting. I will expain myself. The role of the intro, in my opinion is to give a short overview. So, if I only read the intro, I should have a basic idea about the article

• What is Schizophrenia
• In what way are people with Schizophrenia different from others
• How we tell that someone has Schizophrenia
• Once we know, what can be done to help those with Schizophrenia
• What problems do people with Schizophrenia usually have, if any? - Also problems with the law.
• More basic facts, such as how common it is, when it starts, if it affects more men then women,...

Language-wise, I would expect a teenager to understand what Schizophrenia is after just reading the intro. Eptalon (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I am doubtful about 3 and 4 as "we" (the collective reader, not the editors) do not diagnose or treat people with the conditions. (and I shiver at the words We and you in an encyclopedic mindset..) Mentioning doctors doing this would be on topic, but as this is not something the reader will need to know, this info should be limited. Especially in the intro. Maybe latter it can be used, but not in the limited space for the intro. Pure Evil (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

or put differently: once it is clear s person has it, what can be done... Eptalon (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Simplicity again

Far, far too detailed for the average reader. The topic does not excuse a wholesale repudiation of our remit to write simple English. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC) talk 08:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

If I take the intro, I get a Flesch-Kincaid score of 57.11, or a level of 10th-12th grade, "fairly difficult to read". FC prefers shorter sentences, with shorter words. Eptalon (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

My rewriting had some effect on the intro's simplicity. With ignoring the term schizophrenia which is in the intro 19 times (lots of 5 syllable words to throw off the counters), the readability drops to between 7 - 9 with a couple up to 11. 9-10 was still common with the term in. That is also without ref tags tossing in 3-4 character "words" Pure Evil (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

And the simplicity is terrible again.. from 7-10th grade, we are back into college levels and higher. the recent chances have had an extremely bad effect on the article. Pure Evil (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Todo list..

What still needs doing? Ideally, without adding more material:

• Reading flow: One idea per paragraph. New Idea, new paragraph
• Get readability to an acceptable level; currently Flesch-Kincaid says it's 10th-12th grade (or 57.11). Has to be done section by section.
• Sectioning: Avoid titled sections with only 2-3 sentences.
• References: Can we cut down on references?
• Avoid repetition, move larger "self-contained" sections into an article of their own, and replace with a summary?

Did I forget anything? Eptalon (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I redid the intro. Same general structure with just some small changes here and there. I converted the plain refs as best I could. The one grouping had 6 refs for a topic that was not too controversial so I dropped them to 3. Another had 2 but 1 of them was playing hard to convert so I just went with one as it wasn't a huge issue to believe (Some think the condition is abnormal) so one should be enough. Pure Evil (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ignore my post. That work was changed so poorly, it no longer applies... the intro has doubled in complexity and is entirely unsuitable for this site. I give up.. Pure Evil (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect statement

The first thing the article even says is wrong.

"Schizophrenia is a medical diagnosis of a health condition or illness of someones (sic) mind"

Aside from being badly written, that statement in wrong. Schizophrenia is a diagnosis. It is the health condition a person is diagnosed as having. It is the condition while the statement says it is the diagnosis. That "someones" is doubly bad as it is a possessive term so "someone's" and who is this someone anyway? "that affects the mind of a person" could still be questioned but not as likely. and

" A special type of doctor, known as psychiatrist, decides on a diagnosis after meeting a someone."

What makes that type of doctor special? Specific type of doctor, yes, but not special. Decides after meeting? 'Hi. Im Dr K. Nice to meet you. I think you have schizophrenia.'

And that is 5 problems in just the first 2 sentences. Pure Evil (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pure Evil: if you look at 07:25, 6 November 2023 you can see my editorial message to you Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

By someone is meant anyone. I used someone because the alternatives: person (but is not a personality disorder) and individual (has also the meaning individuality which is an expression of the preferences and interests of the self) aren't usable. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"after meeting someone" instead of discussion here you could have simply deleted the mistake in the article - you think discussing the problem here takes precedence over an obvious error in the wording. You didn't delete the mistake, as if I own the wording - think this: why you didn't just delete the mistake? You just arrive here to accuse me of some apparent preference for erroneous grammar. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to fix it in the past and you charged in and redid it all making it incredibly more complex each time. I cleaned it up and got it down to an acceptable readability level and you changed it all with so many bad choices and jump from 8-9th grade to well into college and beyond. Most of these edits are making the article less and less useful. You ask below which refs... I noticed multiples in the first few sections with a host to go. I am not going to sit here hold your hand while you figure out something basic. I am not paid to be your teacher. Pure Evil (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Schizophrenia is mental health disorder that occurs if a certain number of signs and symptoms are present. It's not like diabetes or prostate cancer where a pathologist can take biopsies or do blood tests and come to a definitive conclusion. As doctors we begin be saying that a person has men certain criteria that is indicative of schizophrenia and therefore must be schizophrenic. Even an post mortem will not be able to state for certain that a person was schizophrenic. We start treatment by a general practitioner running certain criteria and deciding that it sound like schizophrenia, we then refer onto a psychiatrist who runs other tests and talks more to the person. The psychiatrist makes the actual diagnosis. We then give treatment for schizophrenia and if that works we will decide that the person very likely has schizophrenia. If those treatments don't work, we try something else and if that works we call it a different disorder. This is what is known as a differential diagnosis. Diagnosing schizophrenia is often harder than diagnosing major depression or bipolar disorder as it has more signs and symptoms. We do our best. Once a psychiatrist diagnoses schizophrenia the patients general family doctor will take over day-to-day treatment with the psychiatrist getting involved if symptoms change or treatment needs to be changed. Treatment differs in the USA where a patient will often see a psychiatrist once a week. In the UK a patient will see a psychiatrist 3-4 times a year. fr33kman 08:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

In the UK if lucky, someone with schizophrenia will see clinical psychologist once a month and if not luck a few times a year. General practitioner's offices may off a patient to see a CBT therapist a couple of times a month for a brief period of time. As a UK doctor who grew up in the USA and Canada I'd like to be able to send my patients to see a psychiatrist for psychotherapy or a clinical psychologist once a week or at the very least a clinical psychotherapist once a week. Unfortunately the NHS will not fund it. fr33kman 08:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You hit the key in your first 5 words. It is a disorder, not the diagnosis of a disorder. The diagnosis is the doctor determining that he thinks the patient has the condition. The condition is Schizophrenia. Actually, the person has condition even without the diagnosis. ie What was the largest Island before Greenland was discovered? Greenland was still the biggest. We just didn't know that it was. Same here, the person still had Schizophrenia. The doctor just hadn't diagnosed it yet :} Pure Evil (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pure Evil: Schizophrenia is a description of symptoms doesn't include the cause of the symptoms - i.e. the doctor's opinion is of someone at the time of the assessment - before the assessment is the cause of the problem, the problem being schizophrenia - the reality of the doctor-patient relationship describes the diagnosis schizophrenia, before the diagnosis people must have experienced problems which after become the diagnosis (i.e. schizophrenia is not only genetic - environmental factors create the problem) - Tobacco is cancerous then people get cancer - someone has schziphrenia but there are no descriptions of "schizophrenic problems" to avoid prior to the diagnosis. The word schizphrenia is creating a reality as we use it, psychologically, by agreeing it is a reality the reality is reinforced (the opposite is challenged or contested). Schizphrenia is invisible unlike bacteria, virus, parasites, moulds and fungus prion (infectious agents), cancer, injury. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you write in English please. That was painful to look at. The first part is beyond a run on sentence from Hell. The later parts are just poorly written drivel.

"psychologically, by agreeing it is a reality the reality is reinforced" WTH are you even trying to say there? If you actually used coherent statements, there is a chance this article would not be such a dumpster fire. Pure Evil (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

As an indication of how your logic could be incorrect "the largest Island before Greenland was discovered - Greenland was still the biggest." but an island on an exoplanet was already the biggest, which we the human species will one day live on in a possible future reality (which today isn't reality and isn't provable as a reality). It depends on how someone thinks about the problem. If I have an input and output - the input is health problem the output is the description of the health problem: the container of the input for the output is medical terminology the only possible reality is dementia praecox or schizophrenia - but if the container is philosophy-psychology the output isn't "schizophrenia". Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

As you have issues with using the concept of scope, relace all usages of "island" with "Island on the surface of the planet Earth in the geographically modern era in our current reality and dimension." Most people would take to the concept on their own, but it seems you do not. Pure Evil (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Schizophrenia is like a doctors pet dog, which is named _____ (lets say the doctor named the dog "Wolf or Wolfy"). No-one could disagree that the dog is named Wolf or Wolfy, because the doctor has described his dog (he owns the dog) and the dog can't argue about it's name, and knows it's name (responds when called) - as long as the dog obeys the doctor (and others) they are happy. And Wolf or Wolfy is happy also, because he always has food to eat, and somewhere to live and treatment and everything he could possibly need for his health. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC) With the doctor ruling (doctors rules) the patient is sometimes drooling (drools ← confusing(ly)) - and dogs drool also, though only some dogs. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I lost count of how wrong this is.. but the point that "if the dog acts properly, The owner will be happy and the dog will be treated as such and be happy" So if the person is abusing the animal, the animal must not of been being proper. It would have been treated good if it acted good.. victim blaming at its best. Maybe the owner is just a right prick who will never be happy. Or will only be happy when they are abusing others. And doctors do not rule. They do try to control the situation in regards to a patients condition, but they do not rule anything. (aside from, maybe, the "Doctors RULE! Dentists DROOL!" chants) Pure Evil (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Doctors (physicians) rule patients and the reality of patients and so reality for patients and that seems to confer a value (a noble value - nobile is the french word) that they know reality - but physicists (and chemists) describe fundamentally reality. Medicine does not describe reality. If doctors were the best at reality for everyone, I don't see medical doctors becoming governmental leaders (kings or queens, or presidents). They can rule the ill but the reality of all is for other professions. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

3 words in and its total BS... and it goes on as bad rambling writing. Then you link to another article you are butchering with more bad writing.. Is English your primary language? Looking at this, I'm guessing, No. Not even top 5... Please stop it with this senseless butchery of the language. You are not the first person to slaughter the language like this recently.. please end it now. Pure Evil (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Way forward..

Hello, everyone, Perhaps we should think about this more like an'elevator pitch'. You are riding with the CEO of your company, in the same elevator, and you got 3-5 mins to explain an idea to him; if you do well, you'll get money for that idea. Different setting: Interested ten-year-old asks you? - It is clear, that S. is a disease, complex to diagnose, so you get listings with 10 items on the left, and 10 on the right. Medical school says: 5 on the left, and not more than 3 on the right; but the case you have perhaps has 7 on the left, and 5 on the right - With experience, doctors likely see that some items are more common than others. What I am getting at? - There was this brilliant guy, John Nash, who got a Nobel prize in economics, but who seems to have had schizophrenia. In 1the late 1990s/early 2000s, there was the movie 'A Beautiful Mind', starring Russel Crowe, Ed Harris, Jennifer Connelly, and others. Yes, it was based on a book. Ron Howard, who made the movie, also explained what S. is (to some extent). Imagine, we are in the same situation. No, no one heard the word 'differential diagnosis'; we might perhaps say, that a doctor tells the patient, after doing some tests, and talking to other specialists'...

So, what can we do, to get the complexity of this article to a manageable level? Eptalon (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

From the position of a bell-boy (bellhop), someone in a hotel wants to check in, his name is Mr. J. Nash. Mr Nash is nobody (although somewhere else he is a professor with a Nobel winning level of complexity) is no-one at all just a then elevator passenger after checking in. That isn't a complex problem. Apart from not being paid enough to carry all the emotional baggage around. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC) the fils-belles wait patiently carpe diem (but not much pay) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The best thing to do is copy passages here and then we could review them as quickly as possible critically. Jennifer Connelly: she was beautiful in the past but now she is not youthfully beautiful - A beautiful face is simple, a beautiful mind isn't simple or simple to prove (mathematical beauty is the acme but knowing why the product: for example why E = mc2 is a beautiful proof, isn't simple). The solution isn't simple. (with regards to schizophrenia beauty (if beauty is like a child, or young adult) Nash is hot, Jennifer is cold) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC) So: I'm fired!, or, dead (dead would be Nash, cremated in game theory because his mind has more complexity than is possible.) Jennifers face is much much simpler and her children are young and beautiful and simple. The Dr's who created schizophrenia: "Dr Bleuler (clinic director), Dr Jung, Dr Riklin, Dr Fürst, Dr Binswanger, Dr Nunberg, Dr Wehrlin". I didn't see a CEO. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC) by the way I am a CEO (genuinely) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC) I forgot Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC) I should have mentioned this fact to you at the beginning Eptalon Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eptalon: I was wondering what the Flesch-Kincaid is. Perhaps you could enable my using the scan so that I could view the score without needing to request it. I noticed:

I do not have the necessary knowledge, so help would be appreciated.

— -Eptalon (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Flesch-Kincaid score would really help to see if the changes I've made are any improvement since the previous discussion here. The changes are "s." in my edit summaries (only 18th). As a quick assessment "History, Symptoms" aren't as simple as possible "Negative symptoms" has awkward erroneous wording - probably everything else (there isn't much else now in the article) I think is simple Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Go Search for 'Flesch Kincaid' with your favoritze search engine, there are several calculators out there. Taking the current into, I get a score of 40.8, and grade level of 'College'. We currently aim for a score of 70-90. What I also see is that there seem to be 21.9 words per sentence. Have you tried with shorter sentences? Eptalon (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

"Schizo means splitting and phren means psychic functions. Dr Eugen Bleuler invented the word. Dr. Bleuler used word parts from ancient Greek. Making new words from ancient Greek words is known as neoclassical." 73.2 7th grade Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The fundamental meaning from the definition is "association-splitting". 0 College graduate Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Schizophrenia is a diagnosis. Flesch Reading Ease Score: 0 College graduate Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

"Schizophrenia" Flesch Reading Ease Score: 0 Reading Level: College graduate ( Very difficult to read ) https://goodcalculators.com/flesch-kincaid-calculator/ © 2015-2023 goodcalculators.com Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

"water" Grade Level Score College Reading Note Difficult to read https://charactercalculator.com/flesch-reading-ease/ Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

"blind" Flesch Reading Ease Score: 100 Reading Level: 5th grade ( Very easy to read ) https://goodcalculators.com/flesch-kincaid-calculator/ Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

mummy Flesch Reading Ease Score: 36.6 Reading Level: College ( Difficult to read ) mom Flesch Reading Ease Score: 100 Reading Level: 5th grade ( Very easy to read ) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

schiz Flesch Reading Ease Score: 100 Reading Level: 5th grade ( Very easy to read )

the doctor said the the man is schiz Flesch Reading Ease Score: 100 Reading Level: 5th grade ( Very easy to read ) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

If I take the into, I now get a Flesch-Kincaid score of 52.4 ('8th to 12 th grade', 'fairly difficult to read'), as opposed ot the socre of two days ago. Thats an improvement. For reference, I used https://goodcalculators.com/flesch-kincaid-calculator/ and copy-pasted the intro. I don't say this one is better than any others. Eptalon (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

well your comment causes me to think that 13:15, 28 August 2018 59 is the best version, and alot could be learned about the contents of that intro. " copy-pasted", and I didn't remove the numbers in the Wikipedia:Simple talk#User:Simpul skitsofreeneea lists so the score would be slightly lower (this is verifiable using User:Simpul skitsofreeneea/schizophrenia datum no numbers). The F K paradox. But this is only to state I don't understand the way the scores are made: obviouly they aren't the average as Wikipedia:Simple talk#User:Simpul skitsofreeneea: 02:14 25 November 2023 (UTC) "I deleted the 0 Flesch-Kincaid sentence "association-splitting" and re-calculated" with 0, whole score: 60.9, without: 59.4. I suppose is Gestalt: so I should replace that part (the part being the sentence deleted) of the meaning of the whole section. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

So, what can we do, to get the complexity of this article to a manageable level?

— Eptalon (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

So I think we should really concentrate/focus on: "the doctor said the the man is schiz" 100. I really feel a reduction in negative psychic fusions by the ease of the 100 statement. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Schizophrenia is a bad thing to have" 64.4 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Schizophrenia is like a sicky feeling or being unwell but happens in your head" 57.3 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Schizophrenia is a head think bad state" 64.4 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Schizophrenia is a head speak think bad way of living" 69.8 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Schizophrenia is a head and speak and think bad way of living" 76.2 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Schizophrenia is in head and speak and thought a bad" 78.2 7th grade ( Fairly easy to read ) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Schizophrenia is in head and speak and thought not good thing to have" 83.7 (a winning line: the game) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Schizophrenia is in head and speak and thought not a good thing to have" 82.6 6th grade ( Easy to read ) is the imperative Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Not that there is any command, but do you assent? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

21:40, 25 November is easy and the problem is disease Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Simple English aims for 70+

— -Peterdownunder (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC) → Talk:Schizophrenia#Readability

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

the F K 21:40 input: 60.6; whole article score (ws): 59.3 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC) current intro (is): 52.4 ws: 59.3 → 19:37, 25 November 2023‎ Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eptalon: so I can now report that the article is whole score 77.7 realized at 19:24, 26 November 2023 = thanks for the help. Though will probably need some further attention as to details by review, so is not in a stable state. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

that is indeed great news, thank you for the effort. As you see, writing in Simple English needs some getting used to Eptalon (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

did we just demonstrate that following these rules results in a text that is difficult to understand? Which kinda shows that these readability scores aren't everything? Eptalon (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

As an example: this version of QR code has a readability of 65.5 (without the references); language-wise it doesn't go to extremes, and probably is a good start for work. Notice: if you reduce the number of words per sentence, and the number of syllables per word, you end up with 'phrasal verbs'. These are difficult to understand, because there's no way to deduce the meaning from the combination of the verb and the preposition... Eptalon (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

68.6 without the numbers. https://freeslotshub.com/rtg/777/ is a slot game. I really wanted 80.

Schizophrenia (sz) is in all heads and speakings and thoughts not a good thing to have. 80.6

Schizophrenia (sz) is in head and speaks and thoughts not a good thing to have. 81.6

I really wanted to have won but wonning is difficult Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There is progress, and SEWP is not about 'winning', its about keeping articles understandable to a general audience. Taking word lists and readability to the extremes doesn'talways produce understandable artzicles. Eptalon (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Article sentences (problem at Wikipedia:Simple talk#User:Simpul skitsofreeneea)

@Eptalon, Pure Evil, and Fr33kman: please see: Wikipedia:Simple talk#Assessment of articles: The whole article Flesch-Kincaid is now 77.2 20:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

77.2 22:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) 77.1 23:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC), 18:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC) 76.6 02:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• comments:
  • A1: "kind" → a type
  • A3: "is with" not «is»: is not all the mind and behavior. "is with" not «in»: since because::c.f. Milieu
  • A5: also
  • A9: Ortiz et al. "exceedingly unusual"
  • A14: "Most" is not quantifiable
  • A15: "early 20s": uncertain. "late": convention (ambiguous) c.f. latter parts of the 20th century
  • A16: «it is not rare/an unusual problem» |common-5(3^o)|rare: & hreran|
  • A18, 19: sources, "men" → boys: males (except: male - «sex» is gender)
  • A21: is between the: state stupid but perhaps in the sense of intel. c.f. confidential records, A30 ← 2014 → 2017: c.f. the four A (grades)
  • A23: logic - "mostly" → Many
  • E9: Diagnosis ← basic: but the only analysis possible is d-i-a-g-n-o-s-i-s: 9 letters, 2 pairs,, 1st part is the same as die ag (could be agony) no-sis or nose-is. Dr Sigmund Freud, died agony nose is Dr Bleuler no sis.
  • E30: 9221390: https://doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.09.007. etc → Bleuler (1911) "blocking" pp.18, 21, 23 (2), 29, 31, 41 (3), 42 (2), 43 (2), 44 (2), 45 (5), 46, 55, 66 (2), 69 (2), 80, 89, 92, 93, 122, 123, 156, 157, 167, 180, 193, 207, 218, 230, 278, 301, 304, 305, 311, 318, 324 (2), 327, 332, 336, 359, 363, 364, 367 (2), 368, 388, 412, 416, 419, 435, 496 → obo-9780195389661-0198.xml (Schizophrenia in society and culture#External) → Wikipedia:Blocks and bans

A1 - I2

Changes:

• 28 November 2023 (total sentences: 31):
  • A8, A1(-5): 21:36, A10: 22:55, A9: 23:23
  • D4: 21:53
• 29 November 2023 (29)

‎**← bug] A12: new 11:34, A6: 18:26, deleted A7 A8

A

Intro 79 A1-5→ 78.9 A10→ 78.8 A9 →87.2 A12→87 A6 A7→86.9 C5 & H1,2,4-11→ 76.7

1. Schizophrenia (sz) is a kind of problem. 55.9 ← Schizophrenia (sz) is a problem. 32.6
2. Sz is some kind of problem of health. 100 ← That is what doctors say and think.
3. This problem is with: someones mind and their behavior. [1][2] 53.9 ← The type of doctor: psychiatrist.
4. That is what doctors say and think. 100 ← Sz is some kind of problem of health.
5. The type of doctor: psychiatrist. 49.5 ← This problem is with: someones mind and their behavior.
6. Doctors think the sz problems are with the brain. 96.2 ← Doctors think the problem is with the brain. 88.7
7. Brains are in heads 100 ← Someone's brain is in their head. 90.8
8. Doctors give drugs as tablets or in injections as a treatment 68.8 ← Doctors give drugs as tablets or injections. 55.9
9. Other treatments also are possible. 32.6
10. Doctors think the cause is: certain types of parts of cells in people, which some people have, with certain things which have happened to people. 71.5
11. How sz happens in the first place, doctors don't know. 95.2
12. Being sz is thought of as being abnormal. 71.8
13. Most people recover and can live a normal life. 79.3
14. Most of the time, the problems of sz starts in the late teens or early 20s. 97.5
15. It is a common problem. 83.3
16. In 2022, about 24 million people worldwide had this problem. 61.3
17. It affects about the same number of men and women. 78.2
18. In men, it seems to start about five years earlier than in women. 83.7
19. Some people think they don't have sz, when a doctor tells them they do. 99.6
20. The difference is the intelligence of the people and the doctors. 60.3
21. Psychology is known as the science of behaviors, and science of minds, the problems of how to understand though what sz is is more a subject of psychiatry. 51.5
22. Psychiatrists mostly think sz is an illness. 55.9
23. They think: is illness, so needs medicines. 81.3
24. Some psychology and psychiatry people in the past thought sz is not an illness though. 64.7
25. They thought psychiatrists and drug makers-sellers hurt sz people. 45.4
26. A doctor made the word and idea. 81.3
27. His name: Dr Eugen Bleuler. 83.3
28. He made the word sometime before April 1908. 71.8
29. Sz is made up of all different things from science in doctors minds. 92.1

20:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC) F K scores complete 20:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

B

B 86.8 83 (without numbers)

1. Doctors learnt at their school 100
2. Sz is a "mental disorder", and a "disease". 71.8
3. Sz is "psychosis". [22][23][24][25][26][1][27][28] 60 (with numbers 100)

FKsc 20:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

C

changes: deleted C5 22:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

C 78.4 5→ 78

1. The meanings of the parts of the word schizophrenia and how the parts make meanings in the word 78.6
2. The word parts are schizo and phren and phrenia. 87.7
3. Schizo means splitting. 60
4. Phren means psyche and phrenia means psychic. 81.3
5. The meaning only by joining the parts together is splitting of the psychic functions. 57.3
6. Psychic is from psyche. 92.8
7. Dr Eugen Bleuler invented the word. 56.9
8. Dr. Bleulers word is neoclassical thought because it uses word parts from ancient Greek. 64.4
9. The ancient Greek word phren (in ancient Greek this is: φρήν) meant "midriff (diaphragm), heart, mind, thought".[29][30][31][32][33][34][35] 72.2 (100)
10. Dr Bleuler wrote a book about his invention. 71.8
11. In the book that Dr Bleuler wrote, the word has a slightly different meaning though. 81.6
12. In the book that Dr Bleuler wrote phren means instead firstly the word "associations". [32] 65.7 (72.3)
13. Today, doctors don't think Dr Bleuler's meaning has as much meaning as the meanings that they think the word means today. 75.5
14. Phren in Dr Bleuler's book means the psychic functions, today this is the functions in psychology. [36][31] 55.2 (70.8)
15. The word -phrenia is only a condition (which isn't necessarily bad) [37][38] or a disorder (which doctors always think is bad).[39] 57.6 (68.3)
16. The word phren is also used to describe part of the inside of some-ones body (human anatomy): the phrenic nerve, which is connected to the diaphragm. [40] 45.1 (57.8)
17. The word schizophrenia is a noun. [41][42][43] 56.9 (100)

FKsc 20:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

D

D 77.3 D4→ 77.2

1. In the past 100
2. The first to use the word schizophrenia was Dr. Eugen Bleuler (born: 1857 died: 1939). 80.8
3. This doctor lived in Switzerland. 66.4
4. This doctor worked in a hospital in Switzerland. 63.4 ← Also worked in a hospital in Switzerland. 55.9
5. Some doctors went to a place in Germany known as Berlin when it was April 1908. 80.6
6. Dr Bleuler went to Berlin also. 73.8
7. Dr Bleuler spoke about his idea and the other doctors listened. 60.3
8. Alot of what the doctors thought about was patients in hospitals with mind problems. 65.7
9. Before, doctors were saying people had a problem which is named: dementia praecox. 58.3
10. Dr Bleuler had the idea to stop doctors using the words: dementia praecox, because he thought it was a bad idea. 58.6
11. Dr Bleuler's idea of the symptoms of sz was made by using ideas made by Dr Sigmund Freud. 70.1
12. Dr Jung was with Dr Bleuler in the same hospital from 1900 to 1909. 91.1

FKsc 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

E

E 64.4

1. The things that happen with people to do with sz 95.2
2. All the things that could happen at any time are: 95.2
3. first (1): normal 93.8
4. after first (2): with some symptoms 90.8
5. after second (3): health becomes worse 73.8
6. after third (4): patient hasn't become healthy again (an enduring problem of health) 58.3
7. This is if somone's life is like counting 1 to 4. 94.2
8. Anyone though could go from 2, 3, or 4 back to 1 again, depends on what happens to them. 86
9. The doctor's decision makes someone be with sz: the word doctors use is "diagnosis" 57.3
10. See the main article: Diagnosis of schizophrenia 5.2
11. Doctors know about someone by what they see, hear, and already know or then know by seeing or hearing, mostly, but also by smell. 55.6
12. Nurses and social workers also maybe help a doctor to decide. 68.8
13. The things they found, after making the decision of "sz", these things are: the symptoms. 81.6
14. Symptoms 36.6
15. These are: 100
16. "Persistent delusions" Someone has had thoughts and emotions. 29.5
17. The thoughts thought are there to begin with because of something or things in the world including their own self. 76.6
18. The thing or things in the world, and, or, self, go into this someone's mind from their eyes or ears, or mouth, or, skin: the senses, and, or, their self, and those things or thing become the subject of their thoughts and also emotion(s). 59.6
19. This someone is thinking in their minds and the thoughts have the emotion firstly of not knowing. 71.1
20. The thoughts and emotions on the subject happen for a while and after a while stop by believing something, a conclusion of all the thoughts. 63
21. When this same someone meets a doctor the belief is thought by the doctor as being about a false reality or an impossible reality. 38.7
22. The doctor knows about these thoughts from this same someone's speaking. 68.8
23. The doctor does not agree with the thoughts of the conclusion. 77.2
24. The doctor thinks those thoughts of the conclusion are a problem. 77.2
25. The doctor would like to change the belief, but the patient won't or can't. 91.1
26. The problem is named a delusion. 73.8
27. "Persistent hallucinations" is the perception of things that psychiatric doctors think don't exist in reality or any known or possible to know reality. 14.3
28. Hallucinations are usually experiences of things that from the senses don't exist from the physical world. 29.9
29. Feeling, hearing, seeing, smelling, or tasting things that aren't there or anywhere. 42.4
30. "Thought disorder": someone speaks: the words in the speaking doesn't arrive at the doctor in an order which means enough or something. 57.6
31. The doctor thinks the same someone is thinking like they are speaking. 76.2
32. If 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 is like the words in a spoken sentence, the number could be more or less than 10, the fact of consecutive is the order. 69.8
33. Disorder is like the words are not consecutive. 63.4
34. Or some of the numbers aren't included in the sentence. 69.8
35. This is known as "disorganized speech or thought" 80.3
36. Thinks or feels controlled and passive 90.8
37. Persistent means that from the first time a doctor has found a symptom the amount of time if there is a next time or times after, is not a very brief time. 72.8
38. All the possible known symptoms of the condition and, or, mental disorder and, or, disease known by doctors and professionals as sz are divided into three groups named: 43.1
39. Psychotic: These symptoms are delusion, hallucination, disorganisation 0
40. Negative: are less of or not having any of: thoughts, behaviors or emotions that someone who is healthy usually has. [58][68] 60.3 (34.3)
41. Cognitive (or cognitive deficits): are problems with attention, memory, the concept of time, and with the ability to plan and organize. 33.2

FKsc 22:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

F

F 68.7

1. Doctors use the word insight to make the meaning of having intelligence and understanding 48.8
2. The word insight means to have a true and real understanding of a problem or situation. 55.2
3. For doctors, sz is about their jobs - employments where they earn money by people who are patients and things like science and research. 65.1
4. People who doctors say have sz sometimes think they don't. 78.2
5. Doctors describe these people as lacking insight. 55.9
6. To lack something is to not have something. 71.8
7. The words doctor use has meanings like: "The fact of penetrating with the eyes of the understanding", "deep", "the power or act of seeing into a situation". 44.1
8. The whole idea is quite complicated. 48.5
9. What doctors really expect from the idea of lacking insight is from at least since 1927, which is the year Dr. E. Minkowski described the idea of psychiatrists penetrating into the mind of patients for diagnosis. 50.8
10. Dr. C. Jung (Jung is pronounced the same as young) had ideas sometime after 1909, which Dr. E. Bleuler described as "depth psychology". 83.7
11. "Mental health literacy" (literacy being literature) could be very similar or the same as insight. 22.4
12. The word insight means literally to see inside, which is in & sight, which is seeing. 64.7
13. This is obviously not possible because the human eye is the organ of seeing. 48.8
14. Situations where actually insight is really possible (which means the eye of the mind), by the definition of seeing inside, is mental visualization and dreams. 20.7
15. Both Dr S Freud and Dr Jung inhaled the smoke of the drug tobacco. 91.1
16. Dr Freud inhaled tobacco from about when he started as a doctor. 67.8
17. Dr Freud's ideas were used by Dr Bleuler in his idea of the symptoms of sz. 72.2
18. Dr Freud was probably a tobacco drug addict. 63.4
19. Also Dr Freud used the drug cocaine before Dr Bleuler knew about him. Dr Jung maybe inhaled tobacco quite a few years after when he first became a doctor. 73.7
20. Tobacco is a drug which is dangerous with addictive. 53.9
21. Tobacco is part of the nightshade family of plants. 62.3
22. Both Dr Freud and Dr Jung wrote about and researched dreams. 85.7
23. They both thought thinking about dreams and the meaning of dreams was important. 75.2

FKsc 22:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

G

G 65.7 →G1

1. What people do to help people with sz and what people could do to stop themselves from having/being sz 76.6 ← 77.6
2. See the main article: Treatments and prevention of schizophrenia 28.5

FKsc 22:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

H

H 80.8 21:10→67 changes: 1,2, 4-11 deleted 21:10, 29 November

1. Things in life which make or maybe make sz 100
2. See the main article: Risk factors and possible causes of schizophrenia 34.9
3. Risk is if I or anyone should or shouldn't do something because of cause: decisions and choices. 62.7
4. Cause is like this: 100
5. 1 (s) → 0 (z) 92.8
6. One is not the thing: not having sz. 100
7. One is a value (like the $). 90.8
8. Zero happens if the arrow happens. 56.9
9. If the 1 and s split. 100
10. Zero is s + z. 92.8
11. Cause of sz is what the arrow (→) is. 88.7

FKsc 22:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I

I 31.5

1. Society and culture 34.6
2. See the main article: Schizophrenia in society and culture 28.5

FKsc 22:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Removing extra content and changing headings

@QuicoleJR: I don't know why you think the headings should match the links: repeating the words doesn't add anything additionally as information: doesn't help anyone to understand what the links actually mean Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It makes more sense. Headers are supposed to be short and describe what the section is about, and the same is true for article titles, so it makes sense to use the same one for both. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Your headers were too long, and there are more things that add to complexity than just the FK score, as I have already told you. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I support restoring this version by QuicoleJR.

• A person's mind just means the mind belonging to a human. That doesn't mean schizophrenia is a personality disorder. Heart disease is a problem with a person's heart.
• Almost everyone knows what a brain is and where it is. If they don't know the word "brain" they can click the link. That's too much to explain in one article.
• "Types of parts of cells" is so vague that it is useless. If they don't know the word "gene", they might not know the word "cell" either. I think we should use "gene".
  • If needed, we can say "so a person is more likely to have schizophrenia if their parents have it." (I don't know whether that's true)
• Some of the words are unnecessary, like "with certain things which have happened to people", and "in the first place". They don't give any extra information.
• For etymology, we could say "meaning of the word". A long heading might be more accurate, but it will probably distract readers.
• I think that treatment and prevention are better words, but I'm not sure.
• We might need to explain diagnosis. A lot of people won't know that word.
• I don't think that paragraph about "1 (s) → 0 (z)" is helpful. I don't understand it at all.

Kk.urban (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: Your statements are opinions but they aren't supported by reasons which I agree with. "Headers are supposed to be short and describe what the section is about": I don't know of a rule of wikipedia from you think of "supposed"; as I stated, the headers which match aren't simple: without any information at all, all the reader has is the same no information twice: the articles they link to have low F K scores so that leads people to need to read elswhere for an explanation. 19:09 looks like you are trying to convince me "It makes more sense." by persuasion: but the argument doesn't show how it improves the quality of the article, just that it obeys a rule of wikipedia on en I think: if the rule reduces the quality: doesn't make simpler, doesn't provide any information than the rule is defunct in this context Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Headers are kept short everywhere else on the site, so I think we need a good reason to have them that long here. Also, you would need a group of users to agree with you to ignore a rule. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR "Your headers were too long," (is just your opinion: how much information is too much...the F K was 77.1 with 35,438 bytes, if this means the article is simple then too much is a presumption of the need for less for the reader without the evidence for proof) "and there are more things that add to complexity than just the FK score" (state what makes less complexity from providing no explanation of the meaning of the words) → shouldn't it be more things that add to simplicity not complexity? you seem to think the contrary of the needs of the article Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC) 22:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I meant to say that more things add to simplicity than just the FK score. Also, please give me some reasons to use your version. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, please respond to Kk.urban's reasons. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: As Fehufang stated on Simple Talk, "The FK score doesn't take into account whether or not the text is comprehensible." (which I use here out of the context of the criticisms of my sentences structure) it is possible to reduce the F K scores to simply as not a value as, for example someone could type in random monsyllable sentences and achieve a high score without any value in meaning - but this doesn't remove the value of the F K as follows: trying to make the sentences simpler, the F K calculator is a guide of how to provide basic concepts instead of sophisticated. Risk is a sophisticated concept; what someone should do or shouldn't in life to have or not have something, is a much simpler concept - this is obvious. Also is obvious is the simpler version has more words. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The second sentence there has a confusing sentence structure, and shouldn't is not a simple word. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"Risk" in https://goodcalculators.com/flesch-kincaid-calculator/ is 100 5th grade ( Very easy to read ) but the word only as a heading doesn't give anything to reduce complexity, presuming the reader is arriving without much knowledge, and the article is the first possible input for understanding or knowing what risk is. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any arguments to use your version other than the FK scores? Also, can you please reply to Kk.urban's comment? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kk.urban: Schizophrenia is a disorder, mental disorder, disease, illness, mental illness, health condition, problem of health, malady they are all relevant but the words imply different things: for example disease illness someone could think is the same, and the use in literature is made without discretion or differentiation of meanings, but the form of the words imply different aspects of reality: disease is a dis-ease implies more from the patients position and an appreciation from the doctor of the difficulties of someone i.e. disease is not easy (isn't a definition anywhere I've seen but certainly is true of disease), illness implies kill or pill applications. The cause of the differences is that someone in history (I'm presuming) simply invented the word pill to be with ill (the etymologies of ill : pill (using this source only) don't show any obvious connection), but the obvious relevant meaning of disease:difficulty/ease and ill:pill exist. So words themselves have implied meanings (they aren't interchangable necessarily). "A person's mind just means the mind belonging to a human." this is what you think is true, but looking at the relevant information from literature is a confusion because: it implies person → personality → + disorder (from at least the symptom "thought disorder" in the article but ICD DSM don't classify/describe as a personality disorder Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Person ≠ personality. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

(@QuicoleJR &) Kk.urban prefers person and I might or do prefer «person», but to avoid confusion «someone» is the taken word to use as is neutral: which means it is external to the the subject of abnormal psychology & psychiatry. There is no possible connection of «someone» to any term or concept in psychiatry or psychology, so that allows us to take a position outside of the subject and look into the suject without being a part of the subject automatically. By this I mean «someone's mind» is all people not psychiatry or psychology as the subject. In everyday conversational usage people could use «person's» synonomously with «someone's» but as I already indicated the form differences have different applications. someone could be sum = 1, or a query some? answer 1 without determination of any particular individual, person: per could e french or english and son also (but the implied meanings aren't obvious as sum + one) + person usage persona, personality isn't relevant to the article so «person» introduces the concept but doesn't explain how person is relevant to sz. Person is used but isn't used as an idea in the article. Isn't the persona (Jung, although I'm not sure completely if this word is Jungian) isn't personality disorder: this is the reality of the article currently by sources. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC) 22:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, person does not mean personality. They are different things. This is not something that will confuse people. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Almost everyone knows: is a presumption obviously, and also not provable. 6th 11 - 12 Seventh grade 12 - 13 years, 8th 13-14 I don't know if these ages would know. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This is something that people learn before 6th grade. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/person is the meaning of QuicoleJR. The person → personality argument I'm stating is the fact of the context of the subject of the article being abnormal psychology/psychiatry particularly. In the context of dictionary and everyday usage to psyhiatric usage person could mean as the dictionary shows, but in the context of the subject of the article person is a partial match for personality: Anchor text#Terminology Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

All of the people who will read this will use the dictionary definition. Also, I do not think that psychologists call personalities persons, and if they do, they would know what schizophrenia is anyway because they are psychologists. This means that there is nobody that this will confuse. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

«someone» has no matching aspects to «personality» Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It is also informal, while Wikipedia has a formal, encyclopedic tone when possible. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you provide proof they learn it before 6th grade. Your statement isn't proof. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

In the United States, it is basic knowledge learned at an early age. I can testify to this because I am from the United States. I have no reason to believe that it would be different anywhere else. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, you saying that they would not be likely to know it is also not proven. Please provide proof of that. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The reason why this:

Doctors think the cause is: certain types of parts of cells in people, which some people have, with certain things which have happened to people.

should be used instead of:

Doctors think the cause is certain genes that some people have, with certain things which have happened to people.

is because "certain types of parts of cells": "genes": the reader doesn't know what a gene is: so they look at the link they see:

Genes are parts of DNA.

they don't know what DNA is.

DNA is a molecule inside a cell that carries the instructions for making the proteins the cell will need.

they don't know what a molecule, cell, instructions, proteins is.

Each gene contains a single set of instructions. These instructions usually code for a particular protein.

et cetera. This therefore is a cause of the reader needing to look through different articles to understand the article schizophrenia, but all they want to know about is the title subject. Because they need to look through different articles, the direction of needing to (by linking) creates complexity. The uncertainty of not knowing creates more potentialized uncertainty which is frustrated by no simplicity in the immediate subjective state or viewing i.e. the reader looks has no relief from tension by simple information, needs (the potentialized) to look elsewhere for the answer where they again find no simple information. The additional informations complicates - makes complexity. This also is true of «cells» actually, but presuming «cells» is an earlier idea (before genes: i.e the ody is made of cells with genes inside, not genes exist which are surrounded y cells which are in us or the body: since many people know «body» that is the location to start from) although «genes» is the exact factor, the simple version is that someone wouldn't need to have the subject of genes introduced due to the complexity of the language in the literature of the subject and the nature of understanding what DNA is from a position of naivety and ordinariness which doesn't include knowledge of the intracacies of microbiology. i.e. people who are involved in non intellectual employments, children Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You just said that they do not know what cells are, so how does this help? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, types of parts of cells is not easy to understand. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes I already showed that I realized genes:cells are similar possible complexities: as words that don't have obvious meanings: so both could be replaced by: "very small parts of the body" which simply links to the word, so that the possible of very simple in the text exists and also the option of looking at a more complicated reality. By including cells or genes the viewer has the perceptual data input which they don't know of so by looking creates immediate uncertainty which potentializes activity to seek information. If the page by viewing is simple complexity could be hidden as a relief from the complexity. The viewer has control of escalating potentialization. They could stop the complexity if cells: genes were hidden. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC) hidden by linking to the term not using the term in the text 21:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Very small parts of the body is too ambiguous. It is not clear what that means. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes that is true but genes is the link so the option of knowing what the very small parts is is given. The blue is like a key which the activation is the door opening into a room with genes and other things inside which could be closed again. With the word «genes» the word is like a window into the same room but someone must always view some part of the contents. To provide the window is to suggest viewing is essential, to provide the key with a description of what to look for provides a decision or choice. «Genes» doesn't provide the choice. Both «genes» and «very small parts of the body» potentialize as neither provide an obvious meaning (both mysterious if not known) by «genes» inputs new mystery (a new term) «very small parts of the body» uses existing simple without the auto-input. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Some people print articles and therefore cannot use the links. Also, very small parts of the body is definitely too ambiguous if you do not click the link. Some people might think that it means cells. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, the same argument applies to my removal of the explanation of the word brain. They could just click the link there too. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes that is true but genes is the link so the option of knowing what the very small parts is is given. The blue is like a key which the activation is the door opening into a room with genes and other things inside which could be closed again. With the word «genes» or «cells» the word is like a window into the same room but someone must always view some part of the contents. To provide the window is to suggest viewing is essential, to provide the key with a description of what to look for provides a decision or choice. «Genes» or «cells» doesn't provide the choice. Both «genes» or «cells» and «very small parts of the body» potentialize as neither provide an obvious meaning (both mysterious if not known) by «genes» (or «cells») inputs new mystery (a new term) «very small parts of the body» uses existing simple without the auto-input. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC) (added «or cells») 22:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

responses to Kk.urban

1. person
2. brain
3. cells/genes
4. unecessary, add extra information
5. For etymology: @Kk.urban: I deleted the sentence (C5) for reasons at 21:30 here: introduces a concept which is arbitrary superfluous: etymology is a complex word Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
6. @Kk.urban: treatment and prevention: better because they are more advanced. Are more specific are more away from most peoples knowledge. So treatment only is someone has ever been ill (or sick, unwell) they would much more probably know this word: perhaps they would only know the word tablets, or medication or meds. Prevention is a more astract word which could e known of from people who are employed in pest or disease control. My energies are less now as the expenditure of thinking et cetera, and viewing the words they look like alot of words which is more than should be needed: the heading isn't succinct ← which looks like the word success. More complex words are time-saving and so more economical. A value for money version: as much valuable information in the smallest time or space. The title is guided by the F K score and the product of trying for nearest to 100 is actually a simpler version:

What other people do and people with sz do to help themselves and to stop themselves from having sz

was the wrong wording: "What people do to help people with sz and what people could do to stop themselves from having/being sz" G1 changed words as was wrongSimpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

7. [1] [2] Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [3] 01:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

8. rewrote: Schizophrenia#Things in life which make or maybe make sz: 00:05-7, 30 November Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

30 November 2023‎

Dr Bleuler knew about these things by studying what patients said. p.64 ISBN 0876685106 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not working

We've talked about doing this, doing that, adding this, removing that but it all still boils down to one thing; the article is far too complex and as it sits is of little to no use to the reader. I'd suggest cutting off limbs to save the body. As it stands this article totally fails WP:SI. Perhaps that is the solution, get rid of ALL the complex material and leave a simplified class b article. The main editor is going to have to be banned from editing all of the articles; he's muddling up the process and under the guise of simplifying the article he's making it worse. fr33kman 23:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I would support all of those proposals. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the min editor from editing for one month which will give us time to figure out what to do. fr33kman 23:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Are we able to revert back to an older version, then work from there? Tsugaru let's talk! :) 02:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I would support that. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: with regards to "good place to begin restarting", what do you propose should be done to improve the article? I followed the FK scores which you yourself added to the guidleines page, and although you suggested while we figure out what to do I don't see any discussion was made on how to proceed. You posted a congratulations on my improvements on my talk page, so those changes should be returned to the article...What are your suggestions? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Perhaps you don't propose anything, no pressure intended. But perhaps a general discussion on the subject of schizophrenia, in which we first identify our respective positions on the subject would allow each of us before engaging with the article to gain some idea of the probability of there being a confilct; i.e. a good way to avoid conflict would be to determine some simple statements on the suject to see if we agree or disagree before beginning again. Or statements of how the article would look in an ideal state, in anyones opinion. Anything of that sort, not just those which I just mentioned. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Simpul skitsofreeneea A message congratulating you on your edit is not an acceptable rationale to restore an edit. Wikipedia policies come first, namely verifiability and simplicity. I am only participating in this discussion because of the quality of the article's prose, not really the content itself.

The Fleisch-Kincaid score is only valuable if the prose is comprehensible and encyclopedic. The FK score does not account for the clarity, grammatical correctness, and other factors in the prose.

Switching between schizophrenia and sz is confusing. Avoid using abbreviations, as this may be confusing to the lay reader.

While the Simple English wordlists are helpful, they are not policy, and words outside of that are occasionally used, as long as one is careful not to make the sentence too complex. The flow of articles should be similar to English Wikipedia articles, except complex sentences should be avoided, and complex words should be substituted with simpler terms if possible.

Not everything needs to be re-explained in the article. For example: Cause is like the arrow from right to left:. Cause is already in the combined Basic English wordlist, it is expected that most readers understand what cause means. There are occasions where it is useful to explain a complex word (lutenist (a person who plays the lute)), or they can be linked to a relevant article so that the reader can understand it.

Keep in mind that even though articles on the Simple English Wikipedia are expected to be simple, that doesn't mean that they have to be short stubs. There are many examples of long but excellent articles, such as Billy Graham. I don't see trimming as a solution currently. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 13:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Switching isn't what I intended and I think I maximized on sz throughtout, if I didn't I would do so as it is an easy way of lowering the FK while maintaining coherency (well without there being any conflict over content changes). Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is now 49.7 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The editor at the unblock request denial stated "Your block is for continually pushing back on feedback and making articles considerably harder for a typical person to read." If the FK score isn't the guide for simplification, and Fr33kman has already supposedly indicated that it is at the writing in simple wikipedia guidelines page, then the article could simply be reduced to a few paragaphs as I see is the situation on other articles. So really just exclude everything other than a very basic description of the subject. Would that instead be the expected solution? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Obviously the problem could be thought of as difficult but another way of seeing the problem is that editors failed to solve the problem. It is easy to state the article is difficult to solve, but a quick execution of a solution which we agree on (which reasonably is consensus) would instead be considered by our mutual psychologies (that is everyone/individuals involved) would think it a success, instead of a labourous difficulty. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC) would be more economical mentally if we could simply co-operate and gain closure. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Sentences and passages not sourced so not verifiable so removed and added here

Medical illnesses, and treatment with certain medicines, can cause symptoms very similar to that of schizophrenia. In fact, there are over a hundred medical problems that can cause the same symptoms of schizophrenia. For this reason, it is important to rule out the possibility of either of these things being the cause for the person's symptoms. For this reason, the person should have a thorough medical exam to rule out problems like;

• Not having enough vitamin B12, magnesium, sodium, or other chemicals the body needs
• Sleep disorders
• A stroke or brain tumor
• A metabolism (chemical reactions keeping the person alive) that is too high or too low

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The human brain has 100 billion neurons; each one of these neurons are connected to many other neurons. One neuron may have as many as 20,000 connections; there is between 100 trillion and 500 trillion neural connections in the adult human brain. There are many different parts or 'regions' of the brain. To complete a task - like recalling a memory - usually more than one region of the brain is involved, and they are connected by neural networks which is like the brain's wiring.

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

A schizophrenic delusion is a belief that is very different from what other people with the same way of life believe. Hallucinations are usually experiences of hearing voices that don't exist. These voices often say unpleasant things to the person. Many people can hear voices like this without being schizophrenic, for instance right before falling asleep. This is called a hypnagogic hallucination. The brain cannot tell them apart from normal sounds that are heard. This is not yet fully understood by science.

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

People who live in the 2020s Decade are more likely to have Schizophrenia.

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

More people with schizophrenia smoke than the general population; it is estimated that at least 60% to as many as 90% of people with schizophrenia smoke. Recent research suggests that cigarette smoking may be a risk factor for developing schizophrenia. Smoking also reduces the effects and side effects of anti-psychotic drugs, and this may be one of the reasons for the high smoking rate. Patients taking anti-psychotic drugs die up to 20 years earlier than others, possibly because the medication makes them overweight, gives diabetes and leads to them smoking.

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The treatment of schizophrenia is based upon the phase of the illness the person is in. There are three treatment phases:

• Acute Phase

There are some goals during the acute phase of treatment. Some of these goals are to prevent harm. To prevent harm, the person being treated will have the severity of psychosis and it's symptoms reduced. These symptoms include agitation, aggression, negative symptoms, self-disorder, and thought disorders. Another goal is to find and treat the things that led to the episode of psychosis. Then, the person will be treated by trying to go back to how they were before psychosis. Lastly, the person will be helped by forming social connections and finding out what treatment plans work for them. Some treatment plans can be for a long time, and others can be for a short time.

• Stabilization Phase

The stabilization phase also has goals. One is to reduce the stress the person feels. Another is to prevent the person from experiencing psychosis again. Then, the person is helped further with social connection and getting better. If the person has improved with a medication, it is recommended they keep taking it for at least 6 months.

• Stable Phase

The last phase of treatment is to make sure that the person is improving. If the treatment has bad side effects, it may be changed in this phase. Some treatments during this stage are psychotherapy and medication. Antipsychotic medications greatly reduce the risk of the person experiencing psychosis again. They are strongly recommended.

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Many antipsychotics are Dopamine antagonists (a substance interfering with how another substance works.) High concentrations of Dopamine are thought to be the cause of hallucinations and delusions. For this reason blocking Dopamine reception helps against hallucinations and delusions.

The British national guidelines for treatment (NICE) suggest checking for reactions to traumatic experiences, deciding together with a doctor about using medication, taking into account the side effect risks of getting diabetes, becoming seriously overweight, getting brain damage (tardive dyskinesia, 5% risk per year), men growing breasts, and feelings described as inner torture (akathesia). The guidelines warn against using more than one antipsychotic drug at the same time.

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Bleuler realized that the illness was not a dementia because some of his patients improved rather than got worse.

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This is because there is a 'split' between what's going on in the person's mind and what is actually going on.

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Although the symptoms of schizophrenia can begin to appear at almost any age, initial signs commonly start to reveal themselves in the mid to late 20s, depending on a person's gender. For females, these signs typically begin in their late 20s to early 30s and, for males, they typically begin in their late teens to early 20s.

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Schizophrenia has many different symptoms, and not everyone with schizophrenia has all of them. For this reason, some scientists think that schizophrenia is several separate illnesses that have some of the same symptoms. These scientists claim that the research done on schizophrenia is not accurate since different researchers mean different things when they use the word "schizophrenia" in scientific studies.

Many medications (licensed drugs to cure or treat an illness) may also cause the same symptoms as schizophrenia. The most common ones are antidepressants (medicines to treat depression) and ADHD medication (medication to treat ADHD, a condition affecting the brain, including memory and focusing on surroundings.) If a person has taken anti-vomiting medication (medication to stop them being sick) for some time and suddenly stops, he or she may get schizophrenia symptoms. Hundreds of medications have schizophrenia symptoms as rare side effects (unintended effects of taking them). Illegal drugs such as LSD, amphetamines, psilocybins and cocaine may cause schizophrenia symptoms.

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

They often have problems functioning in society, and have difficulty keeping a job. However, there are a number of people with schizophrenia who get well and have earned college degrees and had professional careers. For example, Elyn. R. Saks successfully became a law professor at the University of Southern California and a published author.

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)